turn

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds only that the camera rotates around an axis, without explaining whether the view state is persisted, whether the scene is affected, or what the output contains. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description contributes little extra behavioral context.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple camera-rotation tool.

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?

The tool is simple, the input schema is fully described, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately identifies the resource being rotated, though it could clarify that the scene objects themselves are unchanged.

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 both axis and angle are fully documented in the schema, including enum-like axis values and negative-angle reversal. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rotates the camera around an axis.' It makes clear this affects the camera view rather than molecular objects, which separates it from object-mutating siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as move, rock, or turntable, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over move, rock, or turntable, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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