Set a shape's rotation angle in degrees clockwise (0–360) around its center; use it to orient slide elements and ensure the rotation saves to OOXML on export.
Set a shape's rotation in degrees (clockwise, 0..360). Stored on props.rotation; the renderer applies it as a Qt item transform around the shape centre. Round-trips through OOXML <a:xfrm rot="..."/> on save.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| degrees | Yes | ||
| shape_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it states storage on props.rotation, renderer behavior via a Qt transform around the shape center, and OOXML persistence. It does not cover error handling, clamping, or return behavior, but it is substantially more transparent than a bare mutation description.
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 front-loaded with the operation and range, followed by implementation and persistence details. It is compact and every sentence adds some behavioral context, though the OOXML/Qt details are somewhat implementation-heavy.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers operation, units, range, internal storage, rendering, and persistence. It lacks edge-case behavior such as out-of-range normalization or errors, but is otherwise sufficient.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives useful meaning for degrees: clockwise and 0..360. shape_id is not described, but it is self-evident from the name and required string type.
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 and resource: set a shape's rotation in degrees. It clearly distinguishes rotation from move/resize siblings by naming the exact operation and units. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from set_property, which could also set 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?
Usage is implied by the operation name and the 0..360 clockwise range. However, it does not say when to use this instead of set_property or what happens for values outside the stated range.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.