Rotate Entity

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

The annotations already indicate a mutating but non-destructive operation, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the geometric semantics of rotating around a base point, but it does not disclose whether the original entity is modified in place, whether undo is available, or what the tool returns.

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, compact sentence with no filler or redundant wording. The core operation and its main semantic constraint are stated directly and efficiently.

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 straightforward transformation tool, the combination of a clear one-sentence description, fully documented required parameters, annotations, and an output schema covers the essentials. The main gap is the absence of any guidance about coordinate systems or effects on related entities, but this is not critical for basic invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains each parameter, including the counter-clockwise convention for angle_deg. The description only repeats the general concepts of base point and angle without adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action (rotate), the target (an entity), and the two key parameters (base point and angle). It reads as more than a restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling transform tools like entity_move or entity_scale.

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 intended use is implied: when an entity needs to be rotated around a base point, this is the tool. However, the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, making it less helpful for an agent deciding among the many sibling entity-operation tools.

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