Manage Linked Images

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

Annotations already flag destructiveness, but the description goes further: it states that embed converts a PlacedItem to a RasterItem, that the original UUID becomes invalid, and that a new UUID is returned. It also discloses runtime behavior (background mode, no Illustrator activation, no Computer Use), which is context annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded, followed by the destructive identity-change consequence, then the runtime note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the returned UUID and the invalidation of the original one, plus the execution-mode caveat. For a 3-parameter destructive mutation tool this covers what an agent must know before calling.

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 description coverage is 100%, so uuid, action, and new_path are already documented in the schema, including the 'required for relink' constraint. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb pair (relink/embed) and a precise resource (placed/linked image), and it is clearly distinct from neighboring tools such as place_image, replace_masked_image, and get_images. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

It explains the effect of the 'embed' action but gives no explicit condition for choosing 'relink' over 'embed', nor any prerequisite/when-not guidance (e.g., when a relink is preferable to re-placing). Usage is implied by the action semantics rather than stated.

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