Feature
Make UX intent explicit with structured annotations.
Add behavioral notes, constraints, and acceptance details directly on wireframes to align implementation expectations.
Problem
Teams often confuse what a screen should do versus what it should look like, leading to handoff ambiguity.
Outcome
Add behavioral notes, constraints, and acceptance details directly on wireframes to align implementation expectations.
Improves handoff clarity
Reduces interpretation risk
What this feature solves
Teams often confuse what a screen should do versus what it should look like, leading to handoff ambiguity.
How teams use it
- 1Annotate interaction intent
- 2Flag conditional states
- 3Tag technical and UX constraints
- 4Reference annotations during planning and QA
Best fit for
- Cross-functional product squads
- Teams shipping iterative releases
- Organizations needing clearer planning standards
Use-case examples
- Use template-led planning to reduce blank-canvas time
- Run structured reviews before visual design lock
Why it works
Why teams choose Annotations
Improves handoff clarity
Reduces interpretation risk
Captures edge-case behavior
Supports QA preparation
Comparison snapshot
How this feature compares with generic approaches in broad design tools.
| Evaluation area | Generic tooling | WireframeTool |
|---|---|---|
| Planning speed | Manual blank-canvas setup | Annotations with a clearer starting point |
| Decision traceability | Scattered comments across tools | Comments, versions, and notes in one context |
| Handoff quality | Ad-hoc screenshots and docs | Flow-aware handoff documentation |
| Cross-team clarity | Role confusion during review | Shared context before build |
Keep exploring
Explore matching templates and guides
Get early access for Annotations
Share your stack and use case so we can prioritize the right onboarding path.