animate_rotation

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't disclose that this creates animation keyframes over a frame range, modifies the object's rotation in a destructive way, or any side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. It doesn't waste words, but it also doesn't include essential details needed to use the tool effectively.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the tool is complex with many parameters and animation behavior. The description leaves out critical information about how the rotation animation works, the meaning of revolutions relative to frames, and the role of interpolation, making it incomplete for practical use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only hints at 'revolutions' and 'axis' but leaves start_frame, end_frame, interpolation, start_rotation, and object_name undocumented. This is insufficient for 7 parameters.

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 tool rotates an object N revolutions around an axis, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like animate_location or animate_scale by focusing on rotation, though it doesn't explicitly mention animation keyframes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like animate_location, keyframe_animation, or insert_keyframe. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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