Set Model Rotation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the rotation order (XYZ) but does not mention any behavioral traits like clamping, resolution, or whether it sets absolute or relative rotation. This is adequate for a simple setter but lacks depth.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the key information about Euler angles and axis mapping. Every sentence is necessary and no wasted words.

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 low complexity (3 required params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the parameter meanings and rotation order. However, it could be improved by indicating whether the rotation is absolute or relative, but for a setter, absolute is implied.

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 input schema already describes each parameter with degrees. The description adds value by explicitly naming pitch, yaw, and roll for each axis, enhancing understanding beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, so this extra context earns a 4.

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 tool sets model rotation using Euler angles in degrees, with explicit mapping of x, y, z to pitch, yaw, and roll. This distinguishes it from sibling nudge and rotate tools, providing specific verb and resource.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it vs siblings like nudge_model_pitch or rotate_model_clockwise. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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