rotate_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rotation direction (CCW) and that it applies to all entities, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or any prerequisites, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and scope, making it immediately understandable and appropriately concise.

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 simple transformation tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (what, scope, direction). It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Minor omissions like error conditions or layer handling are not critical for this type of tool.

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 clearly implies that base_x and base_y define the base point and angle is the rotation angle in degrees (CCW), effectively linking the parameters to their roles. It adds meaningful semantics, though it does not specify coordinate system or units for coordinates.

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 specifies the action ('rotate'), the scope ('ALL entities'), and the direction ('CCW'), effectively distinguishing it from rotate_entity and other sibling tools. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 word 'ALL' implies this is for rotating the entire drawing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus rotate_entity or other alternatives. The usage context is implied, not stated directly.

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