figma_create_interaction

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 disclosing side effects. It merely restates the function name ('Add a prototype interaction to a node') without mentioning that this mutates prototype state, whether existing interactions are replaced, or what conditions must be met.

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, clear sentence with no filler or unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, though it lacks the detail that a 12-parameter tool would benefit from.

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 tool has 12 parameters, 3 required fields, 6 enums, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the supported interaction types, required fields, or the effect of the operation, leaving the agent without essential context.

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?

The input schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation of any parameter. It does not clarify how nodeId, trigger, action, destinationId, or transition relate to one another, so the agent must guess from enum names alone.

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 action ('Add'), the resource ('a prototype interaction'), and the target ('to a node'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like figma_get_interactions or figma_remove_interactions.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as figma_create_flow, figma_set_default_transition, or figma_setup_overlay. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred.

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