ifc_rotate_element

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

The description usefully discloses that rotation is around the element's own origin, not the project origin, and that the element spins in place. However, with no annotations and a mutating operation, it does not mention persistence, undo/revert behavior, or effects on the IFC model, which remain unknown.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler; the core action and the key behavioral nuance are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 with five parameters, none described in the schema, this is incomplete: the agent cannot tell how guid and query select elements or what max_elements does. Output schema exists, so return values are less critical, but selection semantics and side effects are missing.

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%, and the description only clarifies the axis and the pivot behavior. It adds no meaning for guid, query, max_elements, or degrees (units/sign), so most parameters remain ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rotate'), names the resource ('elements'), and clarifies the rotation frame ('about their own origin, around world x, y or z'). This clearly distinguishes it from movement/placement siblings like ifc_move_element or ifc_set_placement.

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 is provided on when to choose this tool over ifc_move_element, ifc_set_placement, or other manipulation tools. It states what the tool does but not the conditions or alternatives, so an agent receives no routing help.

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