rotate_nodes

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: nodes without rotation are skipped, and it returns { ok, affected }. This clarifies the tool's edge case behavior and return shape, though it does not mention permissions or undo semantics.

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 redundant content. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds essential behavioral info. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of this tool (two required params, full schema coverage, annotations present), the description is nearly complete. It covers the core action, the skip behavior, and the return value. It does not discuss prerequisites or usage alternatives, but for a simple mutation tool this is not a significant gap.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Node ids to rotate' and 'Rotation in degrees'). The description adds the word 'absolute' but otherwise doesn't significantly enrich the parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Set absolute rotation (degrees) on nodes.' It specifies the resource (nodes) and the action (setting rotation), and the mention of 'absolute rotation' distinguishes it from relative rotation or other transformation tools like set_position.

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 this tool is for rotating nodes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like set_position or resize_nodes. It lacks any exclusions or references to sibling tools, so usage context is only implied.

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