Adds a title, label, or callout at chosen coordinates in an animation scene, letting you annotate visuals for clearer explanations.
Add a title/label/callout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| scale | No | ||
| scene_id | No | ||
| font_size | 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 must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a mutation via 'Add' but does not explain persistence, required scene/project context, authorization, or how the text is rendered into the scene.
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 one-line fragment is concise but severely under-specified rather than efficiently informative. For an eight-parameter creation tool, this brevity leaves essential context missing.
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 eight parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough to call the tool correctly. The output schema helps with return values, but the description does almost nothing to explain inputs, context, or behavior.
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?
The tool has eight parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify x/y positioning, color format, scale, font_size, scene_id, or project_id, leaving the agent unable to infer parameter meanings from the definition alone.
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 gives a specific verb ('Add') and names content types ('title/label/callout'), so the agent knows this creates text overlays rather than shapes or equations. However, it does not clarify the relationship to scene_id/project_id or distinguish it precisely from sibling add_* tools.
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 guidance on when to use add_text versus add_shape, add_equation, add_plot, or other sibling tools. The mention of title/label/callout implies a use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.