rotate_stl

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

Description lacks key behavioral details: does it modify the file in-place or create a new file? What happens to existing file? No annotations to help. The word 'rotate' implies mutation, but no confirmation of output or side effects.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior, return values, and constraints. It is too minimal given the complexity of file manipulation.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in schema, just repeats 'by specified angles (degrees)'.

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?

Description clearly states the tool rotates an STL file by specified angles, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like scale_stl and lay_flat. However, it could be more explicit about rotating along X, Y, Z axes, though the schema covers this.

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 like lay_flat or center_model. No mention of prerequisites or when rotation is appropriate.

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