catia_mirror

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value by stating the outcome ('the result is the body plus its mirror image'), which implies the original solid is preserved. It does not say whether a new body is created or the active body is modified, or how the feature appears in the tree.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the operation and its result, with the plane semantics afterward. No filler, though the parenthetical '(Symétrie)' is a small non-essential artifact.

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 non-read-only modeling operation with no output schema, the description covers the plane input and the geometric result but leaves the tree/body side effects and the interaction between the two plane parameters underspecified.

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 33% (only 'name' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'plane' can be an origin plane or a planar face specified through plane_face_point, linking the two parameters, but it omits the point's coordinate format and what happens if plane and plane_face_point conflict.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: mirroring the whole active body's current solid about a plane, with the result defined as body plus mirror image. This distinguishes it implicitly from the surface-based sibling catia_gsd_symmetry, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the closely related catia_gsd_symmetry alternative. The plane definition hints at the operation's inputs but does not tell the agent under which conditions this tool should be chosen.

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