Rotate PDF pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint, so safety framing is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: rotation is cumulative on top of existing rotation, and other pages, links and form fields are untouched. It stops short of saying whether the source file is modified or what the result contains.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the operation, the angle domain and the preservation guarantee. The trailing web-version URL is marginally useful and costs little, keeping it short of maximum efficiency.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is changed and what is preserved, which is the essential behavioral context. It does not state the return shape or that output goes to a server folder by default, though the schema's output parameter description covers the latter.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the page-range syntax and output destination is already documented. The description only restates the angle options ('90, 180 or 270 clockwise, -90 = counter-clockwise'), which the schema's enum and description already contain. Baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 (selected pages of a PDF), plus the allowed angles and the additive semantics ('on top of any rotation they already have'). An agent can distinguish this from pdf_organize/pdf_extract_pages without opening the schema, since page rotation is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself (rotate pages of a PDF), and the preservation note hints at when this is the right, non-destructive-page-selection tool. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. pdf_organize for reordering, pdf_to_images for raster rotation) or any precondition for choosing this tool.

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