plasticity_rotate_reference_meshes

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, destructive mutation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the angle unit (degrees), the requirement for an explicit world-space pivot and a nonzero axis, and the fact that the edit consumes one Plasticity history step. It still omits any auth or rate-limit notes, but the added behavioral detail is meaningful.

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 wasted words. The core operation and its most important constraints are front-loaded, and all additional detail (units, history step) earns its place.

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, 5-required mutation tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the operation, target resource, units, and history behavior. However, it gives no explanation of the required ids and revision parameters, leaving meaningful gaps an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 the full parameter burden. It adds semantic meaning for only three of six parameters (pivotMm as world-space, axis must be nonzero, degrees in degrees) and leaves required parameters ids and revision, plus optional intent, completely unexplained.

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 resource ('current approximate STL/OBJ reference meshes'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like plasticity_move_reference_meshes or plasticity_scale_reference_meshes, so it misses the sibling-differentiation criterion for a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('reference meshes' as opposed to bodies or faces), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent could infer this is the rotation operation for reference meshes, but nothing routes it away from move/scale/delete reference mesh tools.

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