Rotate object

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

Describes return shape (EditResult with operation_id, snapshot_id, changed, before/after preview), states the edit is reversible on the working copy, and includes risk class. Annotations are minimal (false flags), but description adds substantial behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with a clear opening sentence, then sections for usage, key params, return shape, example, and caution. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters, output schema present, and the tool's medium complexity, the description covers purpose, parameters, usage alternatives, return details, risk, and post-edit verification steps. It is fully informative.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains degrees, cx/cy rotation behavior ('when BOTH given otherwise about origin'), and provides an example. It also links object_id to find_objects. All parameters are meaningfully described.

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 'Rotate an object/group by degrees about a point', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning when to use move_object or scale_object instead.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'When to use: spinning one object; get its id from find_objects.' It also gives alternatives and notes that rotation center behavior depends on cx/cy presence. Additionally advises to render and check before trusting, with revert option.

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