rotate_assets

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: non-destructive, no file modification, display transform only, edits are written to Immich and accumulate, side effect of persisting rotation. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it exceptionally.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, and an Args section. It is front-loaded with key information. However, a few extra words ('Provide EITHER...') could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 annotations, three parameters with mutual exclusivity, and an output schema (implied), the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter usage, return value, and side effects. It is complete and leaves no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: angle (multiples of 90, default 90), asset_ids (list of UUIDs, mutually exclusive with album_id), album_id (string, mutually exclusive with asset_ids). It adds constraints and defaults not present in the 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 action (non-destructive clockwise rotation), the target (one or more assets), and the purpose (fix orientation issues). It distinguishes from related tools like revert_asset_edits and delete_assets, making its role 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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('fix orientation issues') and mentions revert_asset_edits as an alternative for undoing. It also clarifies mutual exclusivity of asset_ids and album_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other rotation-like tools (none exist among siblings).

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