create_overlay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It says 'set up' but does not explain side effects, whether the frame is modified in place, whether it becomes a separate overlay state, or what happens to existing prototype connections. For a mutation-like tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately short for a straightforward tool with four well-described parameters.

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?

The tool is simple, has full schema coverage, and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not clarify key contextual factors such as whether the frame must already exist, whether prototype mode must be active, or how this overlay setup relates to prototype flows. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters with meaning. The description itself does not add extra parameter-level semantics, but per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load. It does provide helpful top-level context that nodeId refers to a frame used as an overlay.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Set up a frame as a modal/overlay in prototype mode.' This clearly conveys the core function of converting a frame into an overlay and is distinct from sibling tools like create_prototype_link or create_flow. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings by name, but the meaning is sufficiently clear.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_prototype_link or create_hover_state. The phrase 'in prototype mode' implies a context, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling tools should be used instead under different conditions.

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