Nudge Model Roll

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states it queries fresh state before adjustment, ensuring accuracy even after manual interactions. It also clarifies 'relative to current rotation' and 'positive = clockwise', though negative rotation behavior is implied.

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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. The key action, direction, relative nature, and unique behavioral feature are concisely front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main functional and behavioral aspects. It would benefit from explicitly mentioning negative values and potential limits, but overall is fairly 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 fully describes the 'degrees' parameter with default and direction. The description adds no param-specific details beyond confirming the schema; the auto-query behavior is tool-level, not parameter-level. With 100% schema coverage, score 3 is appropriate.

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 it adjusts model roll (Z axis rotation) relative to current rotation, specifying positive values rotate clockwise. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nudge_model_pitch_down/up and rotate_model_clockwise/counterclockwise by focusing on roll adjustment.

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 when to use (for roll adjustments relative to current rotation) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like rotate_model_clockwise. It mentions automatic state refresh, which guides usage in dynamic environments.

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