rotate_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the unit system ('All lengths and coordinates are in metres'), which the schema does not state for the axis arrays, but it omits mutation semantics such as permission requirements, whether the rotation is relative to the entity origin, or how grouped/nested entities are affected.

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 tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and no filler. Minor redundancy in repeating the degree unit that the schema already specifies, but overall efficient.

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-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its unit convention but leaves the geometry semantics (rotation reference point, effect on grouped entities, failure behavior) unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including types and the [x, y, z] array shapes. The description adds the metre unit convention for the coordinate arrays, which is genuinely additive, but 'in degrees' merely restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Rotate an entity') plus the transformation model (around an axis, by an angle). It is clear on its own, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from the closely related siblings move_entity and scale_entity, which an agent must disambiguate between.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative transform tools (move_entity, scale_entity). The agent is left to infer entirely from the name which transform tool applies.

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