rotate_object

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

With no annotations, the description itself carries the behavioral burden, and it largely succeeds: it specifies rotation about the vertical axis and describes yaw_deg as a delta in degrees. It does not disclose the coordinate reference frame or error behavior for unknown object IDs, but the core side effect is clearly communicated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: target, axis, and angle.

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 two-parameter rotation operation with an output schema present, the description gives the essential semantics. The main omissions—reference-frame details and ID-format specifics—are relatively minor for such a simple operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'degrees' and 'vertical axis' context for yaw_deg and identifies object_id as the selection key, but it does not specify valid ranges, ID format, or angle conventions beyond the schema's type information.

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 names a precise operation (rotate), the target (object by id), the axis (vertical), and the control (yaw_deg degrees). This clearly differentiates it from sibling operations like move_object and scale_object.

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?

It is easy to infer when to use this tool—when an object needs a rotational adjustment—but the description gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to the move/scale/replace sibling tools. The intended usage is implied rather than stated.

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