add_annotationPlace free-text notes on a drawing page at specific coordinates in millimeters. Ideal for callouts, labels, and design instructions in TechDraw.
Add a free text annotation to a drawing page at page position (x, y) in mm (origin bottom-left, +Y up, matching TechDraw view placement). Returns {handle, name, text}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| name | No | Note | |
| page | Yes | ||
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it specifies the coordinate system (origin bottom-left, +Y up, mm) and the exact return value ({handle, name, text}). This helps the agent understand the side-effect of creation and the expected output without contradicting the annotation flags.
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?
Two tightly packed sentences: the first states the core action and positional context, the second lists the return fields. No filler words, and the most decision-relevant information (the spatial behavior) is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple mutation with five parameterstons and no output schema, the description covers the key facets: what is added (free text), where (page position with mm), and what is returned. It lacks details about potential side effects or page identification nuances, but those are likely implicit in the CAD context. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficiently complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains x and y as page coordinates in mm with a defined origin and orientation, and implies text is free form. However, it leaves 'page' and 'name' semantics implicit (though their roles are somewhat predictable). The description partially fills the gap but not fully.
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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Add a free text annotation to a drawing page.' The phrase 'free text annotation' distinguishes it from dimension, feature note, GDT callout, and other annotation siblings. It doesn't name an alternative explicitly, but the specificity of 'free text' plus the coordinate placement details makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar annotation tools in the sibling list (e.g., add_dimension, add_feature_note, add_gdt_callout, annotate_face). The only implicit hint is the phrase 'free text annotation,' but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.