rotate_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses rotation direction and default scope, but says nothing about whether the source file is modified, how `overwrite` and `output_path` interact, or that password-protected PDFs require `password`.

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 sentence with the core operation front-loaded and the default-scope caveat tucked into a parenthetical. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers the rotation itself but leaves file I/O, overwrite semantics, and encryption handling entirely to inference.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and does so only partially. It clarifies `degrees` (allowed 90/180/270) and the default behavior of `pages`, but `input_path`, `output_path`, `password`, and `overwrite` are left completely undefined.

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 gives a specific verb (rotate), resource (pages), and direction (clockwise), so there is no ambiguity about the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like rearrange_pages or extract_pages, but 'rotate' is distinct enough in this set that an agent can route to it without confusion.

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 only usage detail is the parenthetical that omitting `pages` rotates all pages, which is really a default-value statement, not guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer this over rearrange_pages, nor prerequisites such as needing a password for encrypted inputs.

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