set_overlay_interaction

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only categorizes the action and gives examples; it does not reveal that this creates or overwrites a prototype connection, whether existing overlay interactions are replaced, or what side effects occur after invocation.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, and the key term 'overlay prototype interactions' appears before the parenthetical examples. Every part contributes to identifying the tool's domain.

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?

Despite a rich input schema, the tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, and the description provides only a one-line category. Missing context includes when this tool is preferred over set_prototype_interaction, whether it creates or modifies connections, and what happens after invocation.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Configure') and a distinct resource ('interactive overlay prototype interactions'), with concrete examples (modals, dialogs, bottom sheets, slide-over panels, dropdowns). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling set_prototype_interaction, which appears to target prototype interactions more generally.

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 examples imply when to use the tool: whenever an overlay-style interaction (modal, dialog, sheet, etc.) is being configured. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as set_prototype_interaction or states when NOT to use this tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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