Adds a comment to a Substance 3D Designer graph, either free-floating or attached to a node with node-relative coordinates, to annotate and document material graphs.
Crea un comentario suelto o, con node_id, unido a un nodo (x e y son entonces relativas a el).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| graph | No | ||
| node_id | No | ||
| package | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait — that x and y become node-relative when node_id is given — which structured fields cannot express, but it says nothing about permissions, whether a graph context is required, or what comes back after creation.
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?
One compact sentence with the conditional mode stated up front and no redundant phrasing. It is efficient, though it is so terse that qualifiers had to be dropped, leaving graph and package uncovered.
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?
The core call path (text, optional node_id, optional coordinates) is adequately described for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. However, with 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the missing meaning of graph and package leaves an agent guessing on a non-trivial subset of the inputs.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies text, x, y and node_id semantically (including the coordinate frame switch), which is real value, but leaves the graph and package parameters completely unexplained.
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 ("Crea un comentario") and immediately distinguishes two creation modes: a free-floating comment versus one bound to a node via node_id. That covers what the tool does in one clause without opening the schema.
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 implies the selection rule: pass node_id to attach the comment to a node, omit it for a loose comment. It does not address when this tool is appropriate versus siblings like create_node, nor any prerequisites (must a graph or package be open first?).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.