rotate_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, despite an output_path parameter. It also doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects. The single sentence provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, given the tool's parameter complexity, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It would benefit from brief parameter context without being verbose.

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 is minimal, with no output behavior, side effects, or parameter details. The output schema is undefined, and the tool's complexity in the rotations parameter is unaddressed. Overall, it lacks the context needed for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain parameter meanings. The 'rotations' parameter is an array of objects with integer values, but the description doesn't clarify the expected structure (e.g., page-to-angle mapping). The parameter names are partly self-explanatory, but the complex rotations structure is left ambiguous.

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's function: 'Rotate specific pages in a PDF.' It uses a specific verb (rotate) and resource (pages in a PDF), and distinguishes from sibling tools like split_pdf or merge_pdfs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. The sibling tools include other PDF manipulation functions, but the description doesn't help the agent choose.

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