Places an image, PSD, AI, PDF, or video into Photoshop as an embedded or linked smart object, with optional scale and center positioning.
Photoshop: place a file (image, PSD, AI, PDF, video) as an embedded or linked smart object, optionally scaled % and moved so its center is at position [x,y].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| scale | No | ||
| linked | No | ||
| document | No | Document name; omit for the active document. | |
| position | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations don't: the result is a smart object, and 'linked' vs. embedded determines whether the placed asset is a reference or a copy. It stops short of saying whether a new layer is 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?
One dense sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by accepted formats and the optional transform behavior. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is wasted.
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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs and effect well, but it omits what the agent gets back (layer reference/ID) and leaves the 'name' parameter ambiguous. Minor gaps rather than blocking ones.
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 17% (just the 'document' param), so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains path (source file), scale (percent), position (center at [x,y]), and linked (embedded vs. linked smart object). Only the 'name' parameter is left unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('place a file ... as an embedded or linked smart object') plus the supported file types and the optional scale/position behavior. The 'Photoshop:' prefix and the smart-object framing let an agent distinguish it from ps_openFile, ps_smartObject, and ai_placeFile without opening any schema.
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: the description makes clear you need a target Photoshop document and a source file, and that scale/position are optional. It never states when to choose this over ps_smartObject or ps_openFile, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a document must be open).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.