rotate_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is transactional, that distances are in millimetres regardless of document Units, and that dry_run=true prevents writes while expected_sha256 is required for committing. These are critical safety and execution details that go beyond basic descriptions.

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 contains no redundant or filler language. Each sentence contributes essential information: what the tool does, unit handling, and the safe dry-run/commit workflow.

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 key operational context: transactional behavior, unit normalization, and the preview/commit sequence. However, it does not explain how selection works (selector), what absolute vs relative mode means, or how txid/path are used. These are pipeline-relevant for an agent, but the presence of an output schema and parameter schema mitigates some gaps.

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 explains dry_run and expected_sha256, which are critical workflow parameters, but does not clarify angle_deg, mode, selector, path, txid, allow_locked, or allowed_angles. Given 0% schema coverage in the description, these parameters rely on schema titles and types, which may leave ambiguity for complex fields like selector. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rotate selected PCB components or schematic parts transactionally.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like rotate_board_texts, which handles text objects instead of components. The mention of 'transactionally' adds precision about the operation's scope.

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 workflow guidance: use dry_run=true to preview without writing, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing its expected_sha256. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like move_components, but the purpose statement and context imply the appropriate use case for rotating components.

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