catia_gsd_symmetry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/repeat behavior is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether a new element is created, where it is placed, or how the optional 'name' affects the result.

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 compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical plane list is redundant given 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 small three-parameter GSD tool with no output schema and covered safety annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits where the mirrored element lands (geoset/body) and how 'name' behaves, which an agent might need.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description's enumeration of valid plane values merely repeats the schema's 'xy', 'yz', 'zx' list, adding no new syntax or semantics.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Mirror an element about a plane'), which is enough to distinguish it from unrelated siblings like catia_mirror (a part-level mirror) and catia_gsd_project. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 on when to use this over alternatives such as catia_mirror or catia_gsd_join, and no preconditions (e.g. an active geoset) are mentioned. The only usage hint is the enumeration of acceptable plane values.

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