build_rotate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'rotate and copy,' implying a mutation operation that creates new structures, but doesn't specify behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it destroys the original structure, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some context with examples but misses critical details for a mutation tool with many parameters.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and examples. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides illustrative use cases. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and it's front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more comprehensive given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, 11 required, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like mutation effects, permissions, or output format, and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations. While it states the purpose, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use by an AI agent, especially for a tool with many parameters and no structured safety hints.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter semantics, interactions, or provide additional context like how coordinates define regions or how rotation works practically. It mentions 'pivot point' which relates to origin parameters, but this is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Rotate and copy a structure around a pivot point.' It specifies the verb ('rotate and copy'), resource ('structure'), and context ('around a pivot point'), with examples like buildings and decorations. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'build_transform' or other build tools, which might offer similar transformation capabilities.

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 implied usage guidelines through examples: 'Perfect for creating rotated copies of buildings, making symmetrical structures, or spinning decorations.' This suggests contexts like architectural design or decorative arrangements. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'build_transform' or other sibling tools), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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