rotate_layer

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It specifies the rotation angles and direction (clockwise), but does not mention whether the operation modifies the file in-place, requires authentication, or has any side effects on other layers or frames.

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 very concise, using a single sentence followed by a structured Args list. Every line is informative with no superfluous content.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the parameters and action, but omits information about return values, whether the tool modifies the original file or returns a new sprite, and any usage constraints (e.g., layer type restrictions). It is adequate but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for all four parameters: explains filename, layer_name, frame_index (starting at 1), and angle options (90, 180, 270). This is significantly more useful than the bare schema.

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 layer's image by 90, 180, or 270 degrees clockwise. It lists parameters with their roles, making the specific resource (layer) and action (rotate) unambiguous.

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 implies usage for rotating a layer by specific angles, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like flip_layer, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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