rotate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it thoroughly. It discloses that the source is untouched, the output is a new file, the effect of expand on canvas clipping, and what the tool returns (output path and angle applied). This goes beyond typical descriptions and covers the main behavioral expectations.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: core action, expand behavior, and return value. The most critical detail (new file, source unchanged) is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how parameters behave, and what it returns. It explains the default expand behavior and its trade-off. There's nothing an agent needs to know to use it correctly that's omitted, except perhaps error handling, which is not typically required.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of expand=true vs false (no clipping vs cropping overflow) which the schema states but less concretely. It also clarifies the return includes the angle applied, which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on 'degrees' beyond the schema's clockwiseness, so it's not a full 5.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('Rotate an image clockwise by a number of degrees') and immediately states the key behavior of writing to a NEW file while leaving the source unchanged. It also names the expand behavior, distinguishing it from sibling image operations by its non-destructive nature. This 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 description provides clear context for the expand parameter (default true means enlarged canvas, false crops) but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like resize, crop, or flip. There's no 'use this when...' or comparison to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the operation name.

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