place_image

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that placement creates a layer and can optionally remove backgrounds or add a reference layer, but says nothing about error behavior for missing files or bad URLs, whether new layers are auto-created, or what the call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the primary behavior and its modes come first, followed by the accepted input forms. No filler, though it could front-load the source-option sentence slightly more efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 14-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the high-level modes and input sources. The majority of parameters and the expected result of the call are left to a sparsely documented schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 29% across 14 parameters. The description usefully explains the three source options (path, url, base64) and implicitly the remove_background/as_reference toggles, but leaves positioning, sizing, rotation, name, mime, layer targeting, and tolerance undocumented in prose where the schema is silent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a concrete verb and resource ("Place an image on the board") and names two distinct placement modes, collage and lightbox, which lets an agent picture the outcome. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like draw or layers, so it is clear but not sibling-routed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The two modes are described (collage as its own layer vs. faded tracing reference with an ink layer above), which implies when each is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as draw or layering tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.