rotate_object

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It correctly communicates that rotation is relative and incremental, which is important. It does not disclose details like whether prior rotation is preserved, Euler order, or coordinate space, but for a simple rotation tool these are less critical.

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 filler. It states the operation, the input type, and the key modifier ('relative') efficiently.

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 two-parameter rotation operation, the description plus schema are mostly sufficient. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the agent is left to infer naming conventions from sibling tools and the un-described name parameter.

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 only 50%: the rotation parameter is well documented, but the required name parameter has no description. The tool description merely restates 'delta in degrees' from the schema and does not clarify what 'name' refers to or how to specify the object.

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 ('Rotate'), a clear resource ('an object'), and the key semantic ('by a delta in degrees (relative)'). This distinguishes it from absolute transforms like set_transform, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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 phrase 'delta' and 'relative' imply this tool is for incremental rotation rather than absolute transform setting. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus set_transform, translate_object, or scale_object.

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