set_reactions

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

The description implies the tool performs a write operation (sets reactions), but it does not disclose whether it overwrites existing reactions or requires specific node permissions. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral details such as side effects.

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 two concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and provide a key usage tip. There is no superfluous information, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 description covers the tool's functionality and includes a variant-specific tip. However, it does not address return values or error cases, and with no output schema, a brief mention of what to expect after setting reactions would improve completeness.

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?

Since the input schema has 100% description coverage, the description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema. It uses examples but does not explain parameter semantics further, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 states the tool's purpose: setting prototype interactions (reactions) on a Figma node, with concrete examples like hover effects and click interactions. It also provides specific guidance for component variants, which helps distinguish its use case.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (adding hover effects, click interactions, etc.) and includes a tip for component variants. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_reactions, so it lacks full usage boundaries.

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