titan_start_rotation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what data is returned and conditions it (e.g., SimC APL 'if it exists'), but it does not mention read-only behavior, potential error conditions (e.g., unknown class/spec), output structure, or performance implications of this aggregated call. It is informative but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the key trigger ('CALL THIS FIRST'), followed by a compact list of return contents and the required next step. It is efficient, every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the major return components and provides a clear workflow, which covers most of what an agent needs to invoke the tool and proceed. It falls slightly short by not describing the exact structure/field names of the response or handling of invalid inputs, but for an orchestrating starter tool the description is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both `class` and `spec` having descriptive examples in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies; it simply restates that class and spec are needed.

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 says 'CALL THIS FIRST' for any rotation-creation request and enumerates the exact return payload (identity, role, decision order, spell IDs, SimC APL, module template, settings format). It positions the tool as a comprehensive entry point, distinguishing it from the various sibling data-fetch tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call this first for any 'make a rotation for <class> <spec>' request, and then validate via titan_validate_rotation. It implies that using the dedicated getter siblings is unnecessary because this tool returns everything needed in one call, and it names the one required follow-up action.

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