rotate_footprint

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the board permanently, if it is reversible, or any side effects. Minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Very concise, but the description could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness. No structural issues.

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 tool has two required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the 'reference' parameter, the coordinate system or origin for the angle, or the return value. The agent would need additional context to use the tool correctly.

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 0%. Description adds meaning for 'rotation_deg' by specifying it as an absolute angle in degrees, but does not explain 'reference' (e.g., what it refers to, format). Thus only partial semantic support.

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 rotates a footprint to a specific absolute angle in degrees. It specifies the resource (footprint) and the action (rotate), and distinguishes from 'flip' or 'move' tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'move_and_rotate_footprint' or 'rotate_shape', which limits score to 4.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_and_rotate_footprint' or 'rotate_shape'. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The description implies usage for setting absolute rotation, but lacks explicit direction.

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