Rotate pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly says rotation is added to existing rotation, that a new file is written rather than modifying the source, and it adds the free-tier 30-page limit. It does not mention error behavior or return value, but the core side effects are well covered.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: action/sign, use case, output behavior, and free-tier limit. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts needed to select and call it: cumulative rotation, new-file output, and page limit. It could go further on overwrite behavior and return values, but the schema already documents overwrite and the invocation requirements are adequately covered.

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?

The schema already documents all five parameters and their meanings, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats degrees and cumulative rotation that the schema already states; it adds only the general note that a new file is written.

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 clearly states the tool's action: turn PDF pages by multiples of 90 degrees, with clockwise positive. It also conveys the key semantic that rotation is additive to existing page rotation, which distinguishes it from page-reordering or splitting tools, though it never names a sibling 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?

It gives a concrete context: fixing a sideways scan. This is clear enough for an agent to decide when rotation is needed, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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