Stop rotation

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuine extra context: the resulting state ('stays at its current location'), the no-op safety behavior, and an auth requirement ('Needs a control-scope token') that appears nowhere in the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the resulting state, then the safety and auth caveats. Every sentence carries actionable information with no padding.

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 single-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what the device state becomes after the call, that it's safe when already stopped, and that a control-scope token is required.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'device' parameter is fully documented with accepted formats, resolution guidance, and a pointer to list_devices. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Turn off a device's automatic rotation,' which an agent can distinguish from start_rotation or rotate_device by the opposite effect. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Safe to call when no rotation is set' gives a clear condition under which the tool is still appropriate, which is useful negative-space guidance. It doesn't explicitly contrast with rotate_device or describe when a user would want to stop versus change rotation, leaving a small gap.

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