Rotate Component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutation with potentially destructive consequences. The description adds the 'absolute angle' semantics, but this is also present in the input schema, so it does not add much beyond what annotations and schema already provide. No contradiction exists.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the action, target, and key property (absolute angle in degrees). It contains no superfluous information and earns a perfect score for brevity and clarity.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the one-sentence description suffices. It fully conveys the operation and context, especially when combined with the sibling tool list that distinguishes PCB vs schematic rotations. No additional behavioral or return-value details are necessary.

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 100% for both parameters (angle and reference), so the schema fully documents their meaning. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond the schema, keeping the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('rotate') and resource ('PCB component'), clearly distinguishing this from the schematic rotation tool (rotate_schematic_component) and other component manipulation tools like move_component or place_component. It also adds the 'absolute angle in degrees' detail, which makes the operation unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'PCB component', which separates it from schematic operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool rather than alternatives or mention any prerequisites or side effects. It provides clear context without explicit exclusions, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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