place_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action without any details about side effects, permissions, or document mutations. It does not explain how parameters like createFrame affect the operation or whether the image is embedded or linked.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks substantive content and includes filler ('advanced options'). It is not structured to convey important details, though it is not excessively long.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is substantially incomplete. It does not explain the tool's overall effect, return value, or how it fits into a document-editing workflow. The schema helps with parameters but leaves the tool's behavior and integration context unexplained.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for 7 of 8 parameters, with high coverage (88%). The description adds no additional parameter semantics; the only undocumented parameter (fitOption) remains vague, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's coverage.

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 identifies the action ('place') and resource ('an image'), making the core purpose clear. However, 'advanced options' is vague and does not elaborate on what those options are, and there is no explicit differentiation from sibling tools beyond the resource type.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_rectangle or create_text_frame. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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