edit_rotated_bbox_annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the annotation type is preserved, but offers no information on potential side effects, such as whether editing could affect related data, or require certain permissions.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without increasing length, such as hinting at optional parameters.

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 the complexity of editing a rotated annotation with optional parameters and the presence of sibling tools for similar operations, the description lacks essential context. It does not clarify the behavior of omitted parameters or the return structure, though an output schema exists.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action 'Edit a rotated annotation' and specifies the limitation 'without changing its type'. This distinguishes it from other annotation tools like 'edit_bbox_annotation' and sibling tools.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_bbox_annotation' or when to use the optional parameters. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context.

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