Append pins, polygons, circles, rectangles, or arrows to an existing image while preserving its current annotations. Use it to build up labels without overwriting prior work.
Append annotations to an image, keeping the existing ones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_id | Yes | ||
| annotations | Yes |
| 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 carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the name — that existing annotations are preserved rather than replaced — but says nothing about whether the call is idempotent, what happens on invalid geometry, or any duplicate/overlap handling.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the append-and-preserve semantics come first and nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage the definition leaves prerequisites, coordinate expectations, and failure behavior unstated. The nested schema fills much of the parameter gap, keeping this at an adequate rather than inadequate level.
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?
Top-level schema coverage is 0%: image_id and annotations carry no descriptions, and the description adds no information about the image identifier format or the annotation list. The nested AnnotationInput type is well documented inside the schema, but the description contributes nothing to compensate.
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 precise verb and resource ('Append annotations to an image') and its clause 'keeping the existing ones' implicitly separates it from the sibling replace_annotations. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, but an agent can still tell the two apart.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'keeping the existing ones' hints that this is the right tool when prior annotations must survive, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (replace_annotations, remove_annotations) to route the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.