plasticity_rotate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds operational context ('world pivot' implies global coordinates, 'Angle is degrees' clarifies units), but says nothing about the required revision token (concurrency semantics) or undo/reversibility beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Efficient, though the extreme brevity is partly why coverage gaps remain.

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 6-parameter, destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is thin: it omits parameter meanings, revision/concurrency behavior, and any indication of the effect or return of the operation. Notable gaps remain despite the clear purpose.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden but only clarifies one field ('degrees'). It does not explain the ids array, the 3-number pivotMm/axis format, or the role of the required revision string, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (rotate) and resource (bodies), plus the operation frame (world pivot and axis). The word 'bodies' implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like plasticity_rotate_faces, plasticity_rotate_instances and plasticity_rotate_curve_control_points, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many alternative rotation tools (rotate_faces, rotate_instances, rotate_reference_meshes) or versus plasticity_move/plasticity_scale. The agent must infer selection from the resource name alone.

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