Rotate Schematic Component

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it is a mutating operation. However, the description adds no further behavioral context—it does not mention side effects, whether the operation modifies the file directly, or any constraints. The absolute-angle behavior is only in the schema, not the tool description.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it highly concise and efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

While the schema is rich and annotations are present, the description lacks crucial usage context, such as differentiating from 'rotate_component' and explaining the meaning of the optional 'mirror' parameter. The tool is simple, but the minimal description leaves gaps that the agent must infer from sibling names and schema, making it adequate but not complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters adequately. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, such as clarifying the mirror effect or the relationship between angle and mirror. Since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('a placed symbol in the schematic'), clearly distinguishing it from board-level rotation tools like 'rotate_component'. The context of the schematic is explicit, making the tool's purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rotate_component' or 'move_schematic_component'. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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