set_prototype_interaction

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions defaults for some parameters (e.g., navigation defaults to NAVIGATE, triggerType defaults to ON_CLICK) but does not describe side effects like whether existing interactions are overwritten or if the source must be a specific node type. It provides some clarity but misses important behavioral details.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is not verbose and avoids redundancy with the schema. However, it could add a bit more usage context without becoming wordy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 5 enums), the description is too sparse. It does not explain required parameters like destinationNodeId (though not required by schema, it is essential for navigation) or how the various navigation types behave. The schema provides parameter details but the description should guide successful invocation, which it does not fully do.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does frame the tool's purpose. Since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the action (wire a transition), the resource (interactive prototype), and the source/destination (clickable element to target screen/modal). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_overlay_interaction and batch_link_prototype by focusing on a single transition from a source element.

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 implies usage for creating interactions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_overlay_interaction or batch_link_prototype. It lacks exclusion criteria or preconditions (e.g., source must be a frame or component).

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