Place Style Guide

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the spatial constraint that the guide is placed outside the artboard, but says nothing about whether it creates a new layer/group, what happens on repeat invocation, or how it interacts with an existing style guide.

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 zero filler; the verb and resource come first and the parenthetical detail is compact. It is efficient rather than padded, and nothing redundant is present.

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 must carry the burden of describing the result, and it does not say what is actually created (layer, group, artboard?) or what the tool returns. For a mutating placement tool with four optional parameters, this leaves a real gap, though the thorough schema mitigates it.

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 the position enum ('right'/'bottom'), layer_name, artboard_index, and coordinate_system are all well documented in the schema itself. The description only loosely implies the placement options via 'outside the artboard' and adds no syntax or default information beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Place') and resource ('visual style guide'), and even enumerates its contents (color chips, font samples, spacing indicators) plus its location outside the artboard. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling place_color_chips, which an agent could easily confuse it with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as place_color_chips or extract_design_tokens that overlap in purpose. The agent is left to infer the scenario from the tool name alone.

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