Rotates a 3D model around X, Y, and Z axes and saves it to a new file to improve bed contact and reduce overhangs and supports.
Rotate a 3D model into a new file, in degrees around X, then Y, then Z, to improve bed contact and reduce overhangs/supports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x_deg | No | ||
| y_deg | No | ||
| z_deg | No | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare that the tool is non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it writes to a new file and applies rotations in X, then Y, then Z order, which matters because rotation order affects the result. It still omits overwrite and file-format behavior.
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 well-structured sentence with the operation front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information: output behavior, rotation order, units, and intended purpose.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description provides enough to call the tool with input/output paths and rotation angles, but omits file-format and overwrite constraints for a mutation that creates a new file.
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. It clarifies the degrees and non-obvious X→Y→Z rotation order for the angle parameters, but it does not clarify file_path or output_path semantics such as accepted formats, overwrite behavior, or path requirements.
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 and resource: rotate a 3D model into a new file. It also specifies rotation axes and order, clearly separating it from sibling operations such as scale_model and get_model_dimensions.
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?
It gives a clear intended use case: improving bed contact and reducing overhangs/supports. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as scale_model when scaling would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.