image_rotate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions accepted formats and the 50 MB size limit, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether original files are modified, where output files are written, or that existing files are never overwritten (the latter appears only in the schema's outputDir description). This is a partial but incomplete behavioral picture.

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 four short sentences that front-load the verb and resource, then add concrete details on angle options, a relatable use case, and input constraints. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality and input constraints, but leaves out output behavior (how results are returned or saved) and whether multiple files are processed independently. The schema provides some of this via the outputDir description, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by specifying accepted input formats (image/*, .heic, .heif, .avif) and a per-file size limit (50 MB), which helps agents select valid input files. It also confirms the typical rotation angles from the angle enum.

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 explicitly states 'Rotate image' and details rotation by 90/180/270 degrees or mirroring, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like image_convert, image_resize, and image_crop. The use case 'Sideways phone shots get fixed' further clarifies the intent.

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 a clear use case ('Sideways phone shots get fixed') and scope (rotation/mirroring), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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