Normalize Component Text Rotation

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, but the description adds nothing beyond that - it does not say what is actually modified (all components? all attribute text in the schematic?), whether changes are persisted, or what the non-idempotent behavior means in practice.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise in form; however, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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 no output schema and only partial parameter documentation, the description leaves out scope of effect, persistence, and required context - an agent would need to open other tools or docs before calling it safely.

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 only 50%: schematic_path is undocumented, and workspace_root's override semantics are only in the schema. The description mentions neither parameter and gives no hint about the required schematic path, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 name/title say 'normalize component text rotation', but the description instead talks about resetting 'attribute windows' to 'left-justified text' - a different concern (alignment, not rotation) expressed in unexplained jargon. An agent cannot tell whether this rotates, realigns, or restyles text, nor what 'attribute windows' refers to, so the purpose is ambiguous rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. which schematic must be loaded), and no routing to alternatives such as set_component_symbol_text or set_component_parameters, which also manipulate component text. The agent must guess when this tool is appropriate.

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