photopea_rotate_canvasRotate or flip the entire Photopea document with all layers together; use layer transform when you need to rotate just one layer.
Rotate and/or flip the whole document, all layers together. Use transform_layer to rotate a single layer instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flip | No | Mirror the document horizontally or vertically | |
| angle | No | Clockwise rotation in degrees, e.g. 90, 180, -90 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful scope beyond that by stating the operation applies to the whole document and all layers together, though it could mention reversibility or undo behavior for a destructive transform.
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 with no filler. The primary behavior and the routing alternative are both front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 two-parameter destructive document transform, the definition covers purpose, scope, and the key alternative. It leaves minor gaps around in-place modification and undo expectations, but the annotations and schema carry most of the remaining context.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains angle as clockwise degrees and flip as horizontal/vertical mirroring. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses specific verbs and resource scope: rotate and/or flip the whole document with all layers together. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from transform_layer, which handles single-layer 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?
It gives clear routing guidance by naming transform_layer as the alternative when only one layer should be rotated. The when-to-use condition is explicit and directly tied to the sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.