autocad_rotate_entity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds 'in place' (mutates rather than creating a copy) and the degrees/counter-clockwise convention, which is useful context, but says nothing about axis of rotation or undo behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then a compact Args/Returns layout with no filler. The Returns block is redundant against the output schema but is brief.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is close to complete: it conveys the action, the pivot, the angle convention, and the success shape. It could note the rotation plane or that the handle must reference an existing entity.

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?

With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description must compensate and it does: it names all three fields (handle, base, angle) and supplies the critical unit/sign convention ('DEGREES, counter-clockwise positive'). It omits the handle format detail (hex string) that the schema carries, but covers the semantics adequately.

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 ('Rotate an entity in place about a base point') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like move_entity, copy_entity, scale_entity, and mirror_entity. No explicit sibling routing, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

The description never says when to use this versus the other transform tools (move, copy, scale, mirror), nor does it state any prerequisite such as the entity needing to exist first or the document context required. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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