set_rotation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Rotate a node' with no detail on whether rotation is relative/absolute, whether it affects children, or any side effects. The agent is left completely uninformed about the tool's behavior.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and not verbose. However, it lacks substance and earns its place only minimally; it is not overly long, so a mid score is appropriate.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only two simple parameters, the description should still explain usage context, expected effects, or constraints. It provides none, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly in a complex design environment.

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 100% for both parameters (angle in degrees, nodeId as target node), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a clear verb ('Rotate') and resource ('a node'), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling set_* tools, and the phrase is essentially a restatement of the tool name with minimal added value.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, or any context for selecting it among the numerous sibling tools. The description offers no indication of appropriate scenarios.

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