adobe_place_image

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

The annotations already establish a non-read-only, destructive operation, and the description adds useful context about the existing source and application-dependent coordinate units. It does not explain how placement modifies the document, whether anything can be overwritten, or what session or group prerequisites affect execution.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loads the operation and target. The coordinate-unit detail is directly useful, with no redundant or filler wording.

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 output schema removes the need to describe return values, but invocation remains under-specified for a destructive seven-parameter tool. Source handling, group identification, session prerequisites, and the optional group-related fields are not sufficiently explained.

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 description clarifies that the source is an existing PNG and that position represents x/y in Photoshop pixels or Illustrator points. With 0% schema description coverage, it leaves too much unexplained: the accepted source location format, the role of name, session_id, group_path’s integer indices, and expected_group_name.

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 specifies the action (embed), resource (an existing PNG), and destination (a named group). It does not explicitly differentiate this operation from the other Adobe editing or import-related siblings.

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?

“Existing PNG” and “named group” imply that this is for placing prepared image content into an existing structure. There are no explicit prerequisites, when-not conditions, or alternatives such as creating a group first or using another editing tool.

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