set_node_rotation

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions '2D/3D' but does not explain units (radians vs degrees), whether rotation replaces existing values, or what happens if the node doesn't exist. This is a minimal disclosure without side-effect or error information.

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, focused sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed, though it omits details that would make it richer.

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 low-complexity setter, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the lack of unit specification or behavioral notes makes it slightly incomplete, though not severely lacking.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including the format for 'value' (float for 2D, x,y,z/Vector3 for 3D). The description adds nothing beyond this, but the schema already achieves high coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Set node rotation'), and the '(2D/3D)' qualifier adds distinction from sibling setter tools like set_node_position and set_node_scale. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transform_node or set_node_position. It only states what it does without any context on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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