figma_create_interaction

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: use of getMainComponentAsync for deprecation safety, schema constraint on SMART_ANIMATE (matchLayers not needed), and version limitations (v1, DirectionalTransition not applicable). It does not cover auth, rate limits, side effects like overwriting existing interactions, or return behavior.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds unique information (action, technical detail, version constraints) without redundancy or fluff.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and some constraints but omits prerequisites (e.g., node must be part of a COMPONENT_SET), error handling, and what happens if no target variant is found. It is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for full autonomy.

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 43%, so the description adds value: it clarifies targetVariantName resolution within COMPONENT_SET and explains the transitionType restriction. However, it does not elaborate on duration, easing, or trigger beyond schema basics. The description compensates moderately but not fully for the coverage gap.

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 it creates a variant state-change interaction on INSTANCE/variant nodes, specifying the mechanism (reactions API, CHANGE_TO) and constraints (target within same COMPONENT_SET). It distinguishes itself from general interaction tools by focusing on variants, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like figma_create_prototype_connection.

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 variant interactions by specifying supported node types and transitions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., figma_create_prototype_connection for screen-to-screen navigation) and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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