Place Color Chips

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 write profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the schema: it creates NEW objects placed OUTSIDE the artboard, with labels, i.e. it mutates the document by adding a swatch layer rather than altering existing artwork. It stops short of stating that repeat calls would create duplicate chip layers.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the extraction action first and placement behavior second. No filler, no redundancy; every clause 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 document-mutating placement tool with six well-covered params and no output schema, the description conveys what gets created and where. It could mention what the call returns (e.g., layer/object references) or that re-running duplicates chips, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and each parameter (position, chip_size, layer_name, include_info, artboard_index, coordinate_system) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely echoes 'labels' and 'outside the artboard,' adding no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific compound verb (extract + place) on a concrete resource (unique colors as labeled chip swatches), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_colors, which only reads colors. An agent can tell this tool produces visual swatch artifacts rather than just returning color data.

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 use case (inventorying a document's palette as visible chips) is implied by 'extract all unique colors... place chip swatches,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g., get_colors for a data-only read). Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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