illustrator_place_file

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

The CONTRACT line merely restates the annotations (readOnly/destructive/openWorld/idempotent), which earns no credit, but the description goes well beyond them: linked files auto-update from source, embed_editable opens and pastes PDF vectors, trace+expand tradeoffs for DOM complexity, and a warning above 2000 paths. It never states what document state is modified or what destruction occurs, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive tool.

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?

Headers (WHEN TO USE, KEY CONCEPTS, EXAMPLES, NOTES) front-load the critical routing information, and the two examples show realistic call shapes. The CONTRACT line is pure duplication of annotation data and could be dropped, but the rest is dense and earns its space.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description thoroughly covers placement modes, trace behavior, and complexity warnings. It leaves x/y positioning semantics (origin, units, artboard vs document space) undefined, which is the one operational detail an agent would need to place a file accurately.

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 nested schema already describes every parameter, but the description adds operational meaning the schema lacks: linked=True is a drafting choice vs linked=False for final deliverables, embed_editable is slower but fully editable, and expand controls editability vs DOM weight. It does not clarify coordinate origin or units for x/y, so it falls short of full coverage.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (place) and resource (external file), and enumerates the supported formats (EPS, AI, PDF, image). Combined with the WHEN TO USE scenarios, an agent can distinguish this from siblings like illustrator_path_import_svg without opening either 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?

The WHEN TO USE block explicitly enumerates the triggering scenarios (raster import, vector placement, vectorization via trace) and the KEY CONCEPTS block routes between the linked/embed_editable/trace modes based on drafting vs final output. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with clear mode selection criteria.

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