Rotate nodes

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that auto-layout re-places the node and reports pivot 'layout', that the turn is read back and a non-kept item returns ok:false with its actual rotation/position, and that per-item failures don't fail the whole call. These are exactly the behavioral traits (write semantics, partial failure, verification) not covered by idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core behavior (absolute rotation, pivot meaning) leads, followed by edge cases and return shape. Most sentences earn their place, though the parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan than an ideal definition.

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 supplies the return contract (items: [{ id, ok, error? }] with partial-failure semantics), the pivot/auto-layout caveats, and the verification read-back. This is enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for pivot ('origin' turns about the top-left corner, Figma's raw behaviour, vs the editor-style centre default) that the schema only labels. Angle semantics are already fully documented in the schema, so it's incremental rather than comprehensive.

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 ('Set an absolute rotation', nodes) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling figma_move_nodes ('moves without turning'). An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from adjacent operations without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative operation (figma_move_nodes) and the condition that separates them (turning vs moving), and notes editor support (Design; unverified FigJam, Slides). However, it never states explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance for rotation scenarios, so it's clear context rather than full routing logic.

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