polynodes_camera_rotate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, providing a strong safety and behavior profile. The description adds the radians unit and mentions 'JSON confirmation' as the return, but doesn't describe effects on visual state beyond rotation or any side effects. With annotations covering most behavioral aspects, a 3 is appropriate.

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 brief and front-loads the key action. The 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections are somewhat boilerplate but get to the point without wasted words.

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 a rich set of annotations and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values in detail, but it should do more to clarify parameter semantics given the 0% schema coverage. It's adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool with an undocumented parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'value in radians' and 'params: value', which is minimal and doesn't clarify the parameter's range or direction (clockwise vs counterclockwise). This is a significant gap for an undocumented numeric parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Rotate the 3D camera') which is clear, but provides no differentiation from the sibling polynodes_camera_zoom or other camera tools. The purpose is understandable but siblings like camera_zoom aren't distinguished.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Mentioning that the value is in radians is the only contextual hint. There's no mention of when to rotate the camera or relation to camera_zoom.

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