Append a new scene to a Manim project, optionally assigning a title or project ID, so animation concepts can be organized and rendered in sequence.
Append a scene to the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| project_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says 'append.' It does not state whether the scene is appended at the end, what happens when project_id is omitted/null, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. 'Append' weakly implies ordering, which is the only behavioral signal.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It is a minimum-viable sentence, not an efficient complete one.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations, two undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, and no statement of mutation semantics, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool confidently.
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 does not mention either parameter. It never explains that title labels the scene or that project_id selects the target project (and what the default null means). The word 'project' hints at project_id, but title is entirely undocumented.
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 specific verb (append) and resource (scene) scoped to the project, so the agent can tell it apart from siblings like add_plot or add_area. It stops short of differentiating against the other add_* tools or naming when a scene is the right target.
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 mention of prerequisites such as an open project, and no routing to alternatives among the many add_* siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.