set_transition_reaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool can replace or append reactions but does not mention permissions, mutability, side effects, or error conditions. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, then details key parameters. Every sentence adds value, though the final clause about replaceExisting could be slightly more integrated.

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 13 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits many parameters and lacks behavioral details like side effects or return values.

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. It explains the roles of 'preset', 'transition', direction/matchLayers, and 'replaceExisting', but does not cover the other 9 parameters (e.g., navigation, triggerType, resetScrollPosition). Partial compensation yields a baseline 3.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Create or replace a node-to-node prototype reaction with a typed transition/easing payload.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_smart_animate_reaction' and 'set_reactions' by emphasizing node-to-node and typed payload.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use certain parameters (e.g., 'direction/matchLayers apply only to MOVE_IN/MOVE_OUT/PUSH/SLIDE_IN/SLIDE_OUT') and how to append vs replace. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'set_smart_animate_reaction' or 'set_reactions', leaving room for ambiguity.

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