rotate_pdf_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It mentions the PDF4me API but does not disclose whether the original file is modified, if a new file is created, or what the return value looks like. It gives input instructions but not behavioral outcomes.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes essential examples without fluff. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or changes. It omits the output file behavior, error handling, and prerequisites. The existence of sibling 'rotate_pdf' also demands more explicit differentiation, which is not provided.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by listing all five parameters, giving concrete examples for the page spec ('1', '1,3,5', '2-4'), and clarifying that output directory and file name are optional. This compensates for the two schema parameters lacking descriptions. The phrasing 'provide rotationType' slightly overstates its requiredness, but the schema default mitigates this.

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 verb 'Rotate', the resource 'selected pages of a PDF', and scopes it to specific pages. It distinguishes from sibling 'rotate_pdf' by emphasizing 'selected pages' rather than the whole document, and names the underlying API.

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 implies the use case through 'selected pages' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rotate_pdf' or 'rotate_image'. There is no exclusion or alternative mention, leaving the agent to infer.

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