photoshop_rotate_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('rotate') but does not disclose whether the operation is permanent, reversible, or has any side effects on the document or other layers. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the 'active layer' concept, such as how the active layer is determined or whether the rotation applies only to raster layers. This is a minor gap for an agent that might need to ensure the correct layer is targeted, but the schema's document_id parameter partially covers document context.

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%, with both 'degrees' and 'document_id' clearly described in the schema. The description adds no extra information about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already covers rotation direction units and document activation behavior.

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 states a specific verb, 'rotate', and a clear resource, 'the active layer'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scale_layer', 'move_layer', or 'set_layer_opacity', making the tool's purpose clear without ambiguity.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., ensuring a layer is active), no exclusions, and no mention of how to set up the state correctly. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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