rotate_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait: the agent will walk within reach to perform the rotation. However, it does not describe job queueing/wait behavior, failure conditions, reversibility, or other side effects beyond the rotation itself.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, target, operation modes, and a behavioral note in a compact form, earning every word.

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 5-parameter tool with an output schema and 80% schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves ambiguities: what 'one step' means, when to choose this tool over siblings, and how wait_s/replace interact with the rotation job. It is usable but not fully self-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 80%, so wait_s and replace are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaning by clarifying that omitting direction corresponds to a 'one step' rotation, which the schema does not state. It also connects the direction parameter to the rotation concept, though the schema provides the explicit north/east/south/west mapping.

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 specific action (rotate) and a specific target (entity at x,y), and clarifies two operation modes: one-step rotation or explicit 16-way direction. The verb is unique among the listed sibling tools, so the agent can distinguish it from inspect_entity, place_entity, deconstruct, etc., though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 rotate_entity versus other entity-related tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. The parenthetical 'walks within reach' hints at distance behavior, but it does not explain when the tool should be selected over alternatives.

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