plasticity_rotate_instances

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation and destructive nature are covered structurally. The description adds useful context that the rotation uses a world-space pivot and axis and that the angle is in degrees, but it does not explain what gets altered, whether the revision token guards concurrency, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The operation is front-loaded, and the subsequent unit clarification is immediately useful.

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 destructive six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits how instances are identified, the role of the revision parameter, and the expected mutation behavior, all of which an agent needs before 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 0%, so the description must carry full parameter semantics. It only explains pivot, axis, and degrees, leaving required parameters ids and revision and optional intent unexplained in both schema and description.

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 current native linked instances. It distinguishes the operation from sibling transforms like move_instances and scale_instances, and from rotate_reference_meshes by specifying native linked instances.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name alternatives such as plasticity_rotate or plasticity_move_instances. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and description.

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