rotate_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys the core operation (rotation), the base point, and the counter-clockwise direction, but does not disclose whether the entity is modified in place, what happens to the selection, or any prerequisites such as the entity existing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value.

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?

While the description covers the essential parameters and operation, it leaves ambiguity around the 'selection' identifier and whether the rotation is an in-place modification. Given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions, the description is adequate but not complete.

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 provides only types and names with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that handle refers to the entity or selection, base_x/base_y define the rotation base point, and angle is in degrees with CCW direction. This adds meaning to all four parameters, though it doesn't specify the exact format for handle.

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 uses the specific verb 'Rotate' and clearly identifies the resource (one entity or selection) and the operation parameters (around a base point by angle degrees CCW). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rotate_all by explicitly scoping to a single entity or selection.

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 implies usage for rotating an individual entity or a selection, which contrasts with rotate_all, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance beyond the scope implied by 'one entity'.

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