sb3_add_commentAdd a text comment to a specific sprite in a Scratch project, with optional coordinates for placement, to annotate and communicate context during project editing.
Add a sprite comment. (proxied)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| target | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the operation 'adds' a comment, with no mention of side effects, required project state, validation behavior, or what the '(proxied)' parenthetical means. The ambiguity of 'proxied' is a notable gap.
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 terse, but under-specification is not conciseness. The phrase '(proxied)' is vague and takes up space without earning its place. A four-parameter mutation tool needs more than a single clause.
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?
Despite having an output schema and a long sibling list, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call this tool. It omits usage context, parameter meaning, coordinate semantics, and clarification of 'proxied'.
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 adds no parameter documentation. The roles of 'target' and 'text' are inferable from their names, but 'x' and 'y' defaulting to 0 are unexplained, and no coordinate system, units, or required format is described.
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 and resource: 'Add a sprite comment.' This makes the core action clear. It does not strongly distinguish this from the sibling sb3_set_comment, but 'add' versus 'set' reasonably implies creation versus updating, so the purpose is understandable.
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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sb3_set_comment, sb3_list_comments, or sb3_remove_comment. The description provides no context about prerequisites, project state, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.