place_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that device placement uses a point (left, top) and that zones/scenarios require width/height, and that connections are drawn on both sides. This discloses shape-specific behavior, but it does not mention side effects such as overwriting existing objects, permissions, or return values. The output schema exists but is not described, so the behavioral story is partial.

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 compact: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail the shape-specific behavior. Every clause adds meaningful information with minimal redundancy. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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?

Given seven parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the spatial parameters but leaves required fields (handle, plan_uid, item) unexplained. It also does not address the return value or any preconditions. While the output schema exists, its content is not described, so an agent may not know what the tool responds with. The description is adequate for understanding basic placement logic but lacks details needed for fully 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 0%, so the description must illuminate parameters. It explains the role of left, top, width, and height for different object types, but it does not clarify what 'handle', 'plan_uid', or 'item' represent. It also does not state that left/top are optional (defaults exist) or how they interact with the required fields. The explanation is useful but incomplete for the three required parameters.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Нарисовать объект ГК на плане' (draw an object on the plan). It distinguishes device placement (point) from zone/scenario placement (rectangle) and mentions connections. This is specific enough to separate it from sibling tools like add_object or set_object, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 description provides clear usage context: devices are placed as points with left/top, zones/scenarios are placed as rectangles requiring width/height, and connections are placed on both sides. This tells the agent when certain parameters are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools.

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