rotate_board_texts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly explains that dry_run=true previews without writing and that expected_sha256 is required to confirm the preview, which reveals the tool's safety mechanism. It also discloses the unit behavior. However, it does not explain what happens to locked objects, how the selector works, or whether the operation is reversible, so it is not fully transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. There is no fluff or repetition, and the structure is efficient and readable.

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?

The description covers the purpose, key workflow, and unit behavior, and an output schema exists so return values are not needed in the description. However, it lacks explanation of most parameters and does not mention any limitations or relationship to other tools. For a tool with 8 parameters and moderate complexity, this is a notable gap, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 must compensate, but it only explains dry_run and expected_sha256. It does not explain other parameters like mode (absolute vs relative), path, txid, selector, or allow_locked. While angle_deg is self-explanatory and dry_run/expected_sha256 are covered, the remaining parameters are left undocumented, making the description insufficient for this 8-parameter tool.

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 free board text or component markings, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_board_texts and rotate_components. The verb 'rotate' and resource 'board text or component markings' make the purpose 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 provides clear usage guidance by explaining the dry-run workflow: use dry_run=true to preview without writing, then set dry_run=false after inspecting the preview and passing its expected_sha256. This gives the user a safe procedure. It also notes that distances are in millimetres regardless of document units, which is an important practical detail. However, it does not mention when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it, so it is not a full 5.

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