place

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a write/mutation operation ('Place an element') but does not state whether it is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. It adds value by specifying placement constraints (at a tick, for a hold) but fails to disclose other essential behaviors like idempotency (though 'key' parameter hints at it) or effects on existing sheet elements.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the core action without unnecessary detail. It could be improved by placing domain-specific terminology in a more front-loaded manner, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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 complex domain (cut sheets, elements, ticks, holds) and lack of output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the what, where, and when but omits return values or side effects. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail is warranted for a tool with 6 parameters and nested objects, especially to clarify the 'fields' object and idempotency behavior.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the description complements this by explaining the domain-specific action for the main parameters ('at a tick' and 'for a hold'). However, the description does not clarify the 'fields' parameter syntax or the role of 'key', leaving some semantic gaps.

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 ('Place an element'), the target ('onto a cut sheet'), and the conditions ('at a tick for a hold'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'splice' or 'draft' which suggest different operations. However, it does not differentiate from potential similar tools like 'apply', and lacks a verb-resource structure that fully clarifies domain-specific terms like 'element', 'cut sheet', 'tick', and 'hold'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. With 17 siblings including tools like 'inspect', 'draft', and 'preview', an agent has no context for choosing 'place' over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must a sheet be created first?), exclusions, or typical use cases.

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