transform_rotate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It omits whether the rotation is applied in place, whether it is absolute or relative, whether it is undoable (undo/redo siblings exist), and what permissions or document state are required for a mutation of this kind.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficiently written, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four of five parameters undocumented anywhere, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call without knowing angle units or what pageIndex/itemIndex/layerIndex address.

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?

With 5 parameters and only 20% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not: angle units (degrees vs. radians) are unspecified, and pageIndex, itemIndex, and layerIndex are never explained. Only document_id is documented, and that documentation lives in the schema rather than the description.

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 verb ("Rotate") and resource ("an object") plus the operating parameter (angle), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling transform tools like transform_flip, transform_scale, or transform_align, leaving the family boundaries to inference.

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 the other transform_* siblings, nor any prerequisites such as needing a selection or a specific object reference. The agent must guess at context of use entirely.

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