Rotate Pages

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

Annotation contradiction: idempotentHint=true is inconsistent with a rotation operation, because a second identical 90-degree call produces a 180-degree result rather than the same result as the first call. The description also does not disclose side effects beyond the schema, such as signed-PDF handling or output behavior when outputPath is omitted.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the operation, degree range, and default page scope. Every phrase carries useful information and there is no redundant filler.

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 six-parameter schema with full descriptions for outputPath, returnBase64, and allowBreakingSignatures, the terse description is largely sufficient for invocation. It loses one point because there is no output schema and the description itself leaves return-value behavior unstated, though the parameter docs compensate.

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 the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description's 'All pages when pages is omitted' only restates the pages parameter's existing schema description and adds no new parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: rotate pages, with explicit clockwise directions (90/180/270 degrees) and default scope. This clearly distinguishes it from page-manipulation siblings like extract_pages, delete_pages, and reorder_pages without needing to open the schema.

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 explicit guidance on when to use rotate_pages versus alternatives such as reorder_pages or extract_pages. The only usage nuance provided, 'All pages when pages is omitted', describes parameter scope rather than tool selection, so the agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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