Rotate a 3D object by specifying delta radians along X, Y, or Z axes, choosing world or local space for precise orientation control.
Rotate an object by delta radians in world or local space.
Args: name: Object name. x, y, z: Rotation delta in radians. space: WORLD or LOCAL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| z | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| space | No | WORLD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context beyond the schema by stating the rotation is a delta and offers WORLD vs LOCAL space. However, it omits cumulative behavior, effects on children, or undo/reversibility for this mutating operation.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the arg list is compact and scannable. Slightly verbose formatting with the Args: block, but no wasted prose.
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?
The essentials for calling (name required, defaults for x/y/z/space) are all covered, which is adequate. But as a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, behavioral details like cumulative rotation and child influence are missing, making it only partially complete.
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, and it does: every parameter is documented (name, x/y/z as rotation delta in radians, space as WORLD/LOCAL). The 'delta radians' clarification adds meaning the schema lacks.
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 an object') and the key dimension of delta radians in world or local space. The 'delta' wording distinguishes it from absolute transform tools like set_object_transform, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs. the many transform siblings (move_object, scale_object, apply_transform, set_object_transform, align_object). No exclusions, no alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.