figma_place_image

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

The description discloses important behaviors: automatic downscaling over 4096px, conversion of non-native formats to PNG, and that the result reports what was done. The annotation openWorldHint=false is minimal, so the description carries the burden and does it well.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by important behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the key behaviors and result reporting. It doesn't explicitly mention error cases or prerequisites (e.g., node must exist, file must be accessible), but the schema and annotations provide enough for an agent to call it correctly. The output schema is absent, but the description mentions the result reports what was done.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about the default maxSide (4096) and the default scaleMode (FILL), which aligns with the schema. It doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: placing a local image file into a node as an image fill. It specifies the resource (node) and the action (place image), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_export or figma_metadata by focusing on image placement.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (placing local images) and mentions automatic downscaling and format conversion. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the specific action make the use case clear.

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