photoshop_place_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states side effects ('adds a new layer'), preconditions ('active document; file must exist'), and clarifies coordinate semantics (absolute top-left, not offset). It also notes the return value (placed layer name, bounds, position). While it doesn't cover error scenarios or all edge cases, it discloses the essential behavioral traits an agent needs to predict outcomes.

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 efficiently structured with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then addresses coordinate semantics, usage guidelines, returns, preconditions, and side effects in a clear, bullet-like flow. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, coordinate semantics, usage conditions, return values, preconditions, and side effects. The parameter meanings are fully captured in the schema, and the description fills in the behavioral and contextual gaps, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without further investigation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context for x/y coordinates, explicitly stating they are absolute canvas coordinates for the top-left bound and NOT an offset from the default centered place. This clarification goes beyond the schema's own descriptions. The document_id parameter is well-described in the schema, so no additional explanation is needed in the description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Place an external image file as a new layer in the active document.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like photoshop_open_image (which opens a file as a new document) and other layer operations. The purpose is unambiguous and directly states what the tool accomplishes.

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 explicitly provides both when to use ('compositing assets into an open document at a known position') and when not to use ('opening a file as a new document — use photoshop_open_image'), naming the alternative tool. This gives the agent precise routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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