generate_interactive_variants

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the output composition (five named states plus pre-wired Smart Animate transitions, including a WCAG 2.4.7 focus ring), which the schema cannot express. However it says nothing about side effects, whether it creates new nodes versus mutating existing ones, permissions, or idempotency.

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 that leads with the core action and then details the produced states. It is dense but every clause contributes information, with only the parenthetical focus-ring note adding mild verbosity.

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 six-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced but omits where the component set is placed (the x/y params imply canvas positioning), whether an existing node is required, and what is returned. It is adequate but leaves real 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 100%, so every parameter (x, y, size, label, element, variantStyle) is already documented, including defaults and enums. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Generate") and a precise resource ("interactive Component Set") and enumerates the five states it will produce, so the agent knows exactly what artifact results. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like create_component or generate_state_matrix, leaving that inference to the caller.

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 description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_component, create_component_instance, or generate_state_matrix. There is no context, prerequisite, or exclusion guidance at all.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.