set_interaction_data

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (store) and target (pluginData for non-prototype nodes), but omits critical details such as potential side effects, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or error states. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 9-word sentence that front-loads the core action and constraint. It could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose, but it avoids redundancy and is efficient in space.

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 lack of schema descriptions, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter purposes, return value (none), or prerequisites. The tool cannot be reliably invoked based on this description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. However, it mentions no parameter details; it does not clarify what event, targetId, or nodeId represent or how they relate to the interaction mapping. This leaves the agent without necessary input information.

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 stores interaction mapping in pluginData for a node, specifying it is for non-prototype nodes. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_text or create_frame, which handle visual elements.

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 is for non-prototype nodes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools are mentioned as alternatives, and no context signals like prerequisites or use cases are given.

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