rotate_object

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the critical behavioral trait that it modifies the object in place rather than creating a new copy. It also specifies the rotation axis and angle in degrees. However, it does not mention whether the rotation is reversible or whether it rotates about the object origin or global origin.

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 sentence that gets directly to the point. It front-loads the action and includes only essential qualifiers ('in place', 'no new copy') with no filler.

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 core mutation behavior but omits important context such as the pivot point for rotation (e.g., object origin vs. global origin) and any preconditions. Since the tool has an output schema, return values are likely covered, but the missing pivot information could affect correct usage.

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 the 'axis' and 'angle_degrees' parameters by mentioning X/Y/Z axis and degrees, respectively. However, the required 'source_ref' parameter is not addressed at all, leaving ambiguity about what it refers to. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more fully.

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 verb 'Rotate', the resource 'GEOM object', and the key distinguishing feature 'in place, no new copy', which differentiates it from copy/duplicate tools. It also specifies the axis and angle units, making 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 implies its use for rotating existing geometry but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like translate_object or copy_object. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it relies on implication.

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