Place Image

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: format-dependent results (PNG/JPG/GIF become an image-filled rectangle, SVG becomes editable vector layers), the 4096 px downscale by Figma, and default sizing/placement rules. It does not mention permission requirements or error conditions, and only implicitly conveys that targeting nodeId replaces existing fills rather than adding to them (fully spelled out only in the schema's keepFills description).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then layered with usage and behavioral detail; every sentence carries information. The parenthetical clauses make it dense for a single paragraph, but there is little waste.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the essential creation/replacement behavior, format handling, defaults, and scaling limits. Remaining gaps (x/y, scaleMode, error behavior) are adequately documented in the schema or are minor.

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 64% and the description compensates meaningfully for the undocumented parameters: it explains that width/height each keep the aspect ratio and default to the image's own size, and that parentId defaults to the current page right of its content. It does not cover x/y or scaleMode, but those gaps are small relative to the added sizing/placement semantics.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Put an image file from this computer into the file open in Figma Desktop') and immediately names the sibling it is not for web-sourced images ('use_figma with figma.createImageAsync(url)'). An agent can distinguish it from use_figma, download_assets, and import_design_export without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the when ('Use it for the project's own assets (logos, icons, photos) while designing') and names the alternative plus its selection condition ('use_figma with figma.createImageAsync(url) takes images from the web'). This is the routing information an agent needs, not an inference.

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