rotate_node

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that locked nodes can be rotated (notable bypass of UI lock). However, it does not mention rotation center, anchor point, or impact on children, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise with two sentences plus a note, no redundant information. Key details are front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 simple rotation tool, the description covers primary behavior and a critical caveat. It lacks mention of rotation center but is otherwise sufficient given no output schema needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying clockwise direction and clarifying the default behavior of relative (false) and the ability to rotate locked nodes, which are not in schema descriptions.

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), resource (node in Figma), and specific details (angle in degrees clockwise). It distinguishes from sibling transformation tools like move_node or resize_node by focusing on rotation.

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 explains the relative parameter and locked node behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like boolean_operation or apply_image_transform. Usage context is implied but not compared to siblings.

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