Rotate documents

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the operation affects every page, rotates clockwise, and only supports 90/180/270-degree turns. It does not mention permanence or whether a new document is created, but given the annotation coverage, the added context is sufficient.

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, focused sentence placed directly after the title. It states the operation, the scope ('every page'), the direction ('clockwise'), and the allowed values ('90, 180 or ​270 degrees'). No filler or redundant wording.

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 simple two-parameter mutating tool, the description gives enough information to select and invoke it correctly: what it rotates, how it rotates, and what angle choices are valid. It does not describe the return value or side effects, but there is no output schema and annotations cover the write behavior, so this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is only 50%: the 'documents' parameter has a description, but 'degrees' is just a bare number type. The description compensates by constraining degrees to 90, 180, or 270 and specifying clockwise direction. It does not add anything for documents, but the schema already covers that parameter 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?

The description uses a specific action verb ('Rotate') with a clear resource ('the given documents'), and adds precise constraints: every page, clockwise, 90/180/270 degrees. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_pdf or merge_documents, since the scope and axis of the operation are explicit.

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 implies the use case: rotate all pages of specified documents by a fixed angle. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as edit_pdf, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The context is understandable but not explicitly routed.

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