lay_flat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does clarify the geometric outcome (a face ends up on the bed) and implies a non-arbitrary deterministic result, but it says nothing about whether existing rotation is overwritten, whether the object stays in place or is re-seated on Z=0, or whether the operation is undoable.

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?

A single sentence with the key outcome front-loaded and the parameter ordering rule appended where it is immediately needed. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics but leaves the mutation footprint, failure modes with non-flat or ambiguous geometry, and the post-call state unaddressed. Adequate to attempt the call, short of 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 0%, so the description must supply all meaning, and it does so for the non-obvious parameter: 'face' is defined as an index ordered by descending flat-face area, with 1 being the largest. Only the 'object' parameter goes unexplained, which is acceptable since its name is self-evident.

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 gives a specific verb ('Rotate') and resource ('an object') plus the exact resulting state ('one of its flat faces lies on the bed'), which is far more informative than a bare name restatement. It stops short of differentiating itself from nearby siblings such as orient_object, align_objects, or transform_object, so an agent still has to infer the split.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this over orient_object, align_objects, or transform_object, nor any prerequisite such as an active object selection. The only implicit context is that an object must be flat-faced and the caller wants it bed-aligned.

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