geck_place_object_in_render

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral signal, but it only states the intended action and outcome. It does not disclose that this is a UI-automation drag operation, that it mutates the active plugin, or what happens with dry_run, coordinates, or failure cases.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with the action and outcome front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though the brevity sacrifices parameter and prerequisite detail.

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 six-parameter UI-automation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this one-line description is incomplete. It omits preconditions (active plugin, loaded render window), coordinate semantics, and how the operation relates to the transaction/save workflow hinted at by sibling tools.

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 0%, and the description mentions none of the six parameters. The required editor_id, drop_x_ratio/drop_y_ratio, render_title_regex, backend, and dry_run all remain unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently select or fill the parameters based on this text.

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 names a concrete action ('Drag an Object Window record into the active Render Window') and the result ('create a placed reference'), so the tool's core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with placement-adjacent siblings like geck_esp_patch_ref_position or geck_placement_report, but the drag-and-drop metaphor is distinctive.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given beyond the implicit requirement of an active Render Window. There are no alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions listed, and with more than 45 sibling tools an agent gets little help choosing this over placement/reporting siblings.

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