Place pictures

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only give readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false). It discloses the return shape '[{guid, type} | {error}] in input order', partial-failure semantics (one item failing does not stop the others), the non-replaceability of the image, and the placement-window constraints.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with purpose stated first and constraints after. The final sentence crams returns plus the modify_elements advice together, which slightly hurts scannability, but every sentence contributes information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape and partial-failure behavior, plus the active-window/3D-window constraint the agent needs to call it correctly. Given the annotations cover the safety profile and the schema documents the nested item fields, nothing material is missing.

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 already 100%, so the schema carries the parameters. The description still adds real semantics beyond it: size in meters via width and/or height with aspect ratio preserved when only one is given, pixel-size fallback with bottom-left corner at position when no size is set, and the optional anchor/angle/mirrored/transparent/name list.

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 ('Places raster images (PNG, JPEG, GIF, TIFF, BMP) from ABSOLUTE file paths') and gives concrete use cases (logo on a layout, site photo on a worksheet). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling placement tools like place_drawing and place_hotlink.

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?

Explains the operative context explicitly: elements go into the ACTIVE window database, with storyIndex on floor plans and section/elevation/detail/worksheet/layout otherwise, and that a 3D window cannot hold 2D elements. It also notes that position/size/angle can later be changed with modify_elements and the image itself cannot be replaced, which is useful routing context. It stops short of naming a direct alternative tool by name.

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