rotate_node

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

The description discloses that locked nodes can be rotated because the Plugin API bypasses the UI lock, which is a notable behavioral trait. However, it omits other potential behaviors like side effects on children, constraints, or re-layout. With no annotations, the burden is higher, so more detail would be beneficial.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words 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 simple rotation tool, the description covers the key aspects: absolute vs relative mode, clockwise direction, and behavior on locked nodes. It lacks details about angle range limits, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is mostly 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond restating the schema's content (e.g., 'relative=true to add'). Baseline score of 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 explicitly states the action (rotate), the resource (node), and the specifics (clockwise angle in degrees). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like move_node or resize_node by specifying rotation.

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 guidance on using the 'relative' parameter for additive vs absolute rotation. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like apply_image_transform or set_node_properties, nor does it give scenarios where rotation should be avoided.

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