Insert image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior (returns its name and cells, and how width/height affect the aspect ratio), which is genuinely helpful given no output schema. It does not address re-insertion/idempotency or name-conflict behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: location first, return value second, sizing semantics third. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming return values and sizing behavior, but it omits the cell-reference syntax for 'at', name-collision handling, and permission prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 57%, above the low-coverage threshold, so the schema already documents several parameters. The description adds real meaning for width_cm/height_cm ('one keeps the ratio, both stretch it'), but says nothing about the required 'at' cell-reference format, 'path', or 'sheet', leaving half the parameters 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — 'Place an image at a cell' — so an agent immediately knows this creates an image object at a given location, distinct from the sibling delete_image. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the workbook/sheet must exist), and no mention of alternatives such as create_chart or set_note for other drawing objects. The width/height note is behavioral, not usage scoping.

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