cocos_set_node_rotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets rotation, implying a mutation, but does not cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for brevity.

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 an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter context, making it incomplete for a mutation tool in a complex environment like game development.

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 description adds minimal semantic context by specifying that 'angle_z' is in degrees, which clarifies the unit beyond the schema's numeric type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and three parameters, it does not explain 'scene_path' or 'node_id', leaving most parameter meanings undocumented. The baseline is adjusted due to the low coverage, but the description provides some value.

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 action ('Set') and the resource ('2D rotation (euler Z) in degrees'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_set_node_position' or 'cocos_set_node_scale', which are similar transformation operations, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other transformation tools or when rotation might be applied in a game development context. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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