wb_live_rotate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the rotation is committed as a single WB history (undo) action, multi-selection pivots around the group center, and the default is a non-mutating preview. It omits connection/permission needs and units, but the key mutation semantics are covered.

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?

Two tight clauses with zero filler; the scope and multi-selection behavior come first and the preview default is placed where it will be read. Nothing redundant.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers intent and undo/preview semantics but leaves half the surface unexplained. Units, rpc_dir, and timeout remain undefined, which is a meaningful gap for a rotation operation.

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 0% across 6 parameters, and the description only explains 'apply'. Critically, it never states whether yaw/pitch/roll are degrees or radians, nor what rpc_dir or timeout mean, so an agent has to guess on the most consequential inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rotate the current World Builder selection') and adds scope detail about multi-selection pivoting around its center. It does not explicitly contrast with the non-live wb_rotate sibling, so an agent must infer the live-vs-batch distinction from the name alone.

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 'Preview unless apply=true' clause gives useful default-call guidance, so an agent knows a bare call is non-destructive. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over wb_rotate or wb_live_scale, nor any prerequisite about an active live selection.

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