Rotate local PDF pages

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing post-write self-verification ('reopens the new PDF and verifies page rotations and geometry'), possible loss of document-level structure, and signature invalidation. With destructiveHint=false this warning is valuable extra context; it stops short of saying whether output_path may overwrite an existing file.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its angle constraint, then the verification behavior, then the risk caveat. Nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the result, and it does ('reopens the new PDF and verifies...'). Only the overwrite semantics of output_path and the meaning of keep_bookmarks remain unstated.

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 60%: pages, input_path and output_path are already documented in the schema, but degrees and keep_bookmarks are not. The description adds the valid degrees values (90/180/270) and hints at keep_bookmarks via 'document-level structure may be omitted', but never names the flag explicitly.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Rotate selected pages') and constrains it to a local PDF via the title, which separates it from abox_video_rotate and the other pdf_* siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though sibling differentiation is only implicit through the resource noun rather than stated.

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 sentence says when to reach for this tool versus another (e.g. abox_pdf_select to extract pages first, or that input/output must be local files). The only guidance-adjacent content is the signature-invalidation caveat, which is a warning, not a use condition.

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