archicad_rotate_elements

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the description's added value is the reversibility path ('Revert with archicad_undo') plus the 2D plan-plane constraint. It does not explain what happens to geometry beyond the rotation or whether undo is guaranteed, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the recovery guidance appended. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with six parameters, no output schema, and the destructive flag already handled by annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and the undo path. It omits the default element-selection behavior (elements vs elementType vs selectedOnly interplay), which would matter to an agent calling it blind.

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 83%, so the schema already documents dryRun, degrees direction, elementType examples, and selectedOnly; the description only echoes the origin/degrees semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 (rotates), resource (elements), and operating scope ('in plan around a point by an angle in degrees'), which is far more precise than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling archicad_move_elements, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 only usage guidance is 'Revert with archicad_undo,' which tells the agent how to undo but not when to choose rotate over archicad_move_elements or what the default element scope is. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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