Place Symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing execution mode ('runs without activating Illustrator in default background mode; never invokes Computer Use'). It does not explain consequences of the replace action (e.g. whether replacing a definition affects other instances) or reversibility, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Two tight sentences: capability first, execution-environment note second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is somewhat tangential to tool selection compared with missing when-to-use guidance.

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 6-parameter, 100%-covered schema with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the dual mode and the non-GUI execution model adequately. Remaining gaps (mutation effects of replace, return/confirmation behavior) are minor given that structured fields cover safety and coordinates.

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% with clear enum documentation and detailed coordinate_system semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Place a new symbol instance or replace the symbol definition of an existing instance') and even disambiguates the two internal modes, place vs replace. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as apply_graphic_style or get_symbols, 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?

The action enum ('place = new instance, replace = swap symbol definition') implies the two use cases, and the second sentence clarifies the execution environment. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like run_script or apply_graphic_style, nor any prerequisites (e.g. requiring an open document or an existing symbol).

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