rotate_part

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context with 'absolute' (implying existing rotation is overwritten rather than composed) and the meaning of bottom=true, but says nothing about reference origin, whether the change is undoable, or interaction with placement/routing.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the parameter clarification. Every clause carries information; the parenthetical on bottom is slightly redundant with the parameter name but still clarifies semantics.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and a destructive annotation, the description covers the core operation and two parameters but omits the meaning of 'ref', the rotation origin, and any indication of what the call returns or whether it can be undone.

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%, so the description must carry the burden; it explains 'angle' (degrees, absolute) and 'bottom' (true = bottom side), which is real added value. However, the required 'ref' parameter is never explained, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb ('Set') plus resource ('a board part's absolute rotation ... and side'), which is enough to distinguish it from move_part and set_part_value. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but 'absolute rotation' is a meaningful discriminator an agent can act on.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_part or set_part_value, no prerequisites, and no note about when a rotation change is appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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