sch_place_image

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does supply real behavioral detail: supported image formats, units in mils, bottom-left anchoring, and defaults for width/height, which prevents a common coordinate mistake. It does not say whether the image is embedded or linked (relevant given the audit_find_non_embedded_images sibling), whether the operation is undoable, or what happens if no schematic is active.

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 lead sentence states the action and target up front, and the Args/Returns block is scannable with no filler. The Google-style scaffolding is slightly ceremonial, but every line carries information an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are covered. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description omits the document-state prerequisite and the embedding/undo behavior, leaving behavioral gaps that structured fields do not fill.

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 0%, and the description compensates by documenting all five parameters: image_path with accepted formats, x/y with units and anchor corner, and width/height with units and defaults. Only minor gaps remain (valid coordinate ranges, whether non-integer or out-of-sheet coordinates are clamped).

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?

"Place an image/logo on the active schematic" is a specific verb plus resource and scopes it to the active document, which distinguishes it from library or PCB-level placement siblings. It stops short of naming how it differs from other sch_place_* insertion tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "active schematic" — the agent can infer the tool acts on the currently open schematic, but there is no statement of prerequisites (must a document be open?), no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as obj_create or sch_place_* variants for other object types.

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