rotate_entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states counterclockwise direction and Z-axis limitation, which are useful. However, it does not disclose whether the original entity is modified in place or if a copy is returned, nor does it mention prerequisites like a valid handle. Basic behavior is clear, but some transparency gaps remain.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and key information. No redundant details, every clause adds value regarding scope, direction, and alternative tool.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple rotation tool with an output schema, but lacks additional context such as whether the entity is mutated or a new entity is created, and does not mention the rotate_all sibling for bulk rotations. It covers the essentials but leaves some operational details undocumented.

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 the base point and angle in the context of the rotation operation, mapping to base_x, base_y, and angle. The handle parameter is implicitly covered by 'one entity (or 'selection')'. It adds meaningful semantics, though it does not explicitly name each parameter.

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 verb 'Rotate', the resource 'one entity (or 'selection')', and specific details: around a base point by angle degrees CCW. It also distinguishes from rotate_3d by noting the Z-axis limitation, making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: rotate a single entity/selection in 2D. It gives an explicit when-not constraint ('Turns around Z only') and names an alternative tool ('use rotate_3d' for other axes). This meets the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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