Rotate objects counter-clockwise by a chosen angle around a specified center, or default object center, to adjust their orientation in architectural plans and 3D models.
Rotate objects counter-clockwise by angle degrees around center (default: centre of the objects).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| angle | Yes | ||
| names | Yes | ||
| center | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does convey key traits: rotation is counter-clockwise, angle is in degrees, and center defaults to the objects' center. It does not state whether the operation modifies the objects in place, whether it is reversible, or what happens to existing geometry or properties, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the operation, direction, units, and default behavior with no redundant content.
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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return-value details are covered. However, the description does not resolve the ambiguity of 'center: centre of the objects' when multiple names are supplied, nor does it clarify whether rotation applies per object or to the set as a whole, so an agent invoking it with multiple objects may be unsure of the behavior.
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 adds meaning to angle (degrees, counter-clockwise) and center (defaults to objects' center), but names is only implied by 'objects' and the center's coordinate format is not specified. It is adequate but not thorough.
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 states a specific verb ('Rotate'), the resource ('objects'), and the precise operation parameters: counter-clockwise direction, angle in degrees, and rotation center with a default. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like move_object and mirror without needing to open their schemas.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use rotate_object instead of alternatives such as mirror, offset, or set_geometry, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The description only defines what the operation does, not the context in which it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.