Rotate elements

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the implicit pivot is the combined bounding box and is reported in warnings, that group handling is scoped per includeGroupMembers, and that return shape differs for copy=true. Annotations already cover the destructive/non-idempotent profile, so the description adds real behavioral value without contradiction.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, angle convention, pivot default, then copy semantics and return shapes. Every sentence carries operational information with no filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing both move-style and copy-style return payloads and the group-scoping behavior, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates angle direction, center default, and the k × angle copy semantics, which are already documented in the schema, adding little beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

States a specific verb ('Rotates') and resource ('elements of ANY type in plan') and ties to the UI path (Edit > Move > Rotate). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like move_elements, mirror_elements, and copy_elements.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: default pivot behavior when 'center' is omitted, and the copy=true polar-array pattern with a worked example (6 chairs around a table). It does not explicitly contrast against siblings like move_elements, but the when-to-use guidance is clear.

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