Place Image

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

Annotations already declare the non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world profile. The description adds genuine execution context beyond that: it runs in background mode without activating Illustrator and never invokes Computer Use, which matters for an agent reasoning about side effects and environment.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the exclusion, then the execution caveat. No filler; every clause carries information the 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?

For a 7-param placement tool with no output schema, the description covers format support, linked/embedded behavior, the SVG exclusion, and execution mode. It stops short of describing what is returned or how the placed item is identified afterward, which is a minor residual gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters (including the embed default and coordinate_system enum). The description only restates the linked/embedded distinction conceptually and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline.

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 verb (place) and resource (raster or PDF image) with concrete format examples (PNG, JPG, TIFF, PSD, PDF). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling import_svg_as_editable by naming the resource type it does not handle, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('SVG is NOT supported here') and routes the agent to the named alternative (import_svg_as_editable) with the reason why. The linked-vs-embedded option is also surfaced, so the calling conditions are clear.

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