rotate_3d

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the important right-hand rule convention and the ANY axis capability, which are critical behavioral details not in the schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., transformation behavior, undo semantics), so there is some gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main function, and no redundant wording. The description is efficient and every phrase adds value, including the right-hand rule and the comparison to rotate_entity.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines the axis, angle convention, and usage context. It does not describe the output/return value, but an output schema exists. The only minor gap is that 'handles' is not explicitly described, though this may be inferred from sibling tools.

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 explains x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2 as defining the rotation axis, and angle as degrees. It does not explicitly explain 'handles', but that term is common across sibling tools. The description covers 7 of 8 parameters meaningfully, which is strong given the schema lacks descriptions.

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 entities around ANY axis: the line (x1,y1,z1)->(x2,y2,z2), by angle degrees (right-hand rule).' It specifies the verb (rotate), the resource (entities), and the axis definition, while explicitly distinguishing it from sibling rotate_entity, which can only rotate around Z.

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 explicitly contrasts with rotate_entity: 'rotate_entity can only turn around Z.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (for rotations about arbitrary axes) and when to use the alternative. It also provides a concrete use case ('swing a part about a hinge'), giving clear contextual guidance.

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