rotate_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses transactional behavior, dry-run preview semantics, the hash requirement, unit behavior, and the significant caveat that angle semantics have not been independently validated against a live DipTrace GUI edit and re-export.

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 appropriately sized at four sentences and front-loads the core action and safety caveat. The note about millimetres is tangential to angle rotation but not bloated.

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 high-level transaction workflow, verification guidance, and output schema address return-value concerns. However, for a 9-parameter tool with no annotations, the description omits critical context around selector semantics, angle mode behavior, locked components, and allowed-angles validation, making it only minimally viable.

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 description adds important meaning for dry_run and expected_sha256, but there are 9 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. It does not explain mode absolute/relative semantics, selector scope, allowed_angles, allow_locked, txid, or path, forcing the agent to infer too much from the schema alone.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rotate selected PCB components or schematic parts transactionally.' This clearly differentiates rotation from sibling tools like rotate_board_texts or move_components.

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 gives a clear operational workflow: use dry_run=true to preview, verify through DipTrace, then set dry_run=false and pass expected_sha256. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the full alternatives treatment.

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