fusion_rotate_body

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

With annotations already covering read-only/destructive/idempotent aspects, the description adds useful behavioral detail: the right-hand rule convention, axis can be a named axis or free vector, and origin defaults to the world origin. This goes beyond the schema and annotations to clarify how the rotation is interpreted.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the rotation, the second documents axis and origin, and the third gives a purpose. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description handles most of the essential calling context: coordinate conventions, default origin, units, and intended use case. The only notable gap is the undocumented required `body` parameter, but the rest is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It does so for three of four parameters: angle is in degrees, axis accepts 'x'/'y'/'z' or a free vector, and origin is in millimetres with a default. However, the required `body` parameter is not explained at all, leaving ambiguity about whether it expects an ID, name, or index.

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 clearly states the operation: 'Rotate a body by `angle` degrees' about an axis through a point. It distinguishes this from extrusion/revolve by noting it builds inclined geometry those operations cannot produce, which also separates it from sibling modeling tools.

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 description explicitly gives a use case: 'Use this to build inclined geometry that revolve/extrude alone cannot produce.' It provides concrete context for when to choose this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like move_body or exclude cases where a different transform would be better.

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