create_hover_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intent but does not disclose side effects, whether existing hover states are overwritten, whether the component must already have hover variants defined, or what happens if the variant is invalid. The description adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no wasted wording or redundant detail.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite thin. It does not explain key concepts like what a 'hover variant interaction' entails, how the hoverVariant parameter maps to an existing variant, or what constraints exist on the node. An agent could call this correctly, but would have to guess at important details.

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%, with nodeId described as 'Component or instance' and hoverVariant as 'Variant name for hover state'. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but the schema already covers both parameters adequately, so the 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 states a clear action ('Create') and a specific resource ('a hover variant interaction') on a component. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like create_responsive_variant or set_transition, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites, such as whether the target component must be a component with variants or whether a prototype flow is required. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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