Place free text annotations on a drawing page at X,Y coordinates in millimeters to add notes directly to technical drawings.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the coordinate convention (mm, origin bottom-left, +Y up, matching TechDraw view placement) and the return shape, but says nothing about persistence requirements (e.g. whether a transaction or save is needed) or whether the annotation is attached to the page or a specific view.
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 tight sentences: placement semantics are front-loaded and the return value is stated compactly. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers placement and return shape but omits the semantics of the defaulted parameters and any persistence or transaction expectations. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the trickiest parameters (x, y) with a full coordinate-frame definition, but leaves 'name', 'page', and 'text' — including the required 'page' identifier and the default 'Note' name — completely undefined. Partial compensation only.
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 ('Add') and resource ('free text annotation to a drawing page'), which is clearly more precise than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as add_feature_note, add_dimension, add_gdt_callout, or balloon_drawing, so an agent must infer the boundary between free-text notes and structured callouts.
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 context of 'drawing page' implies the usage phase (post-drawing creation), and the coordinate note implies placement during page layout. But there is no explicit when-to-use instruction and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. whether a drawing page must already exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.