HATEOAS is a generalization of how something like a website would let a client navigate resources (through hyperlinks). It requires an intelligent agent (the user) to make sense. Without HATEOAS, according to Roy Fielding, it's not real REST. Some poor misguided API designers thought this meant they should add URL indirections to their JSON responses, making everything more painful to use for those unintelligent clients (the code that is consuming the API). Don't do this.
If you must do REST at all - which should be up for debate - you should keep it simple and pragmatic. Your users will not applaud you for exhausting HTTP verbs and status codes. The designers of HTTP did not think of your API. You will likely end up adding extra information in the response body, which means I end up with two levels (status code and response) of matching your response to whatever I need to do.
If something doesn't quite fit and it looks ugly or out-of-place, that's normal, because REST wasn't conceived with APIs in mind. Don't go down the rabbit hole of attempting to do "real REST". There is no pot of gold waiting for you, just pointless debates and annoyed users.
The best APIs I've ever used or built have been, at best, REST-ish.
And generally the parts where they deviate from REST make them more usable, not less.
In particular:
> The central idea behind HATEOAS is that RESTful servers and clients shouldn’t rely on a hardcoded interface (that they agreed upon through a separate channel). Instead, the server is supposed to send the set of URIs representing possible state transitions with each response, from which the client can select the one it wants to transition to. This is exactly how web browsers work
[1] https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/restful-web-apis/978144...