bpb_rotate_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a lot: the operation is atomic, the exact internal sequence, that drop/tryAddItem/hotswap are bypassed, that rectangles and L shapes are supported, and the failure code. It omits permission/state prerequisites and what a successful call returns.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that opens with the enabled atomic behavior and ends with the feature-flag fallback. It contains no filler, though the internal call sequence is more implementation detail than decision-relevant.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should be self-sufficient. The failure code and atomicity are covered, but parameter meaning and success behavior are missing, leaving an agent partially equipped.

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 not. Neither item_id nor direction (right/left enum) is mentioned, so an agent gets no semantic guidance beyond the bare schema types.

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 action (atomic in-game rotation) on a specific resource (an item), and the implementation note (removeItem → orientItem → addItemByTopLeft) makes the scope concrete. The item focus implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling bpb_rotate_bag, though the description never names that alternative.

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?

It implies that in-bag, non-overlapping placements use this path and that invalid targets return cannot_rotate_in_place, and it notes that BPB_ROTATE=0 disables the behavior. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over bpb_rotate_bag or what to do if it is disabled.

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