pdf_rotate_pages

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

The description states 'Rotation is additive to any existing rotation,' implying that repeated calls accumulate rotation angles (non-idempotent behavior). This directly contradicts the idempotentHint=true annotation, which claims the tool produces the same result on repeated identical calls.

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 sentences efficiently cover purpose, behavioral quirks, and parameter defaults without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides necessary information not duplicated in the schema.

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?

Given the 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety (destructiveHint=false), the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, the idempotency contradiction creates uncertainty about retry behavior, and there is no mention of output handling or error conditions despite the file manipulation context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage establishing a baseline of 3, the description adds valuable semantic context: it explains that rotation is 'additive' (relating to the degrees parameter) and clarifies the default behavior when the pages parameter is omitted.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Rotate') and resource ('pages in a PDF'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like pdf_reorder_pages or pdf_split. It specifies the valid rotation values (90, 180, 270) immediately.

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 description provides implied usage guidance by explaining that omitting the page range rotates all pages, and mentions the additive nature of rotation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar siblings like pdf_reorder_pages.

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