rotate_nodes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds the detail 'absolute angle', hinting that it replaces existing rotation rather than adding to it. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or auth requirements, so it adds only marginal value beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, conveying the core action and the absolute nature of the rotation.

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 tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and absence of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by explicitly stating that the rotation replaces any existing rotation, but the current version is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: it repeats 'rotation angle in degrees' and 'positive = counter-clockwise' which are already in the schema descriptions. No new parameter context is provided.

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 verb 'rotate' and the resource 'nodes', and specifies 'absolute angle in degrees', which distinguishes it from any potential relative rotation tool. There are no sibling rotation tools, so it is well-differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this sets absolute rotation (not incremental), nor does it suggest when not to use it. No explicit context or exclusions are given.

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