wb_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 the most important behavioral trait: mutation is opt-in via write=true, with dry-run as the default. Beyond that, it says nothing about units for yaw/pitch/roll (degrees vs radians), what a dry-run returns, or whether rotation is applied to a single node or an entire group hierarchy.

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 short sentences with the action first and the safety caveat second, so nothing is buried. The brevity is appropriate structurally, though it is achieved partly by omitting necessary detail.

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?

A 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions is under-specified here. An agent cannot determine rotation units, axis conventions, what file/path refer to, or what a dry-run produces from this definition 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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. It conveys only the pivot concept (and not that it is split into pivot_x/pivot_y/pivot_z) plus the write flag; yaw, pitch, roll, file, and path are left completely undefined, including their units and expected formats.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: rotate an object/group around its origin or an explicit pivot. The scope is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as wb_move, wb_scale, or especially wb_live_rotate, which an agent could easily confuse it with based on 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 mention of 'Dry-run unless write=true' implies the default usage pattern and that an agent should opt in to mutation. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus wb_live_rotate or wb_move, nor any stated prerequisites such as the file existing or being writable.

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