symmetrize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the asymmetry-handling behavior (low side mirrored onto high side) and the default center, but it does not explicitly state whether the high side is overwritten, whether the design is modified in place, or what permissions/conditions are required.

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 two tight sentences with the core operation and direction front-loaded, followed by the essential default behavior for center. No sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 3-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves gaps around design input format, overwrite behavior, and exact axis values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the semantics of axis via the x/z plane and explains that center is the plane's coordinate with a default of the design midpoint, but it does not describe what the design parameter expects or give explicit axis values.

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 states a specific operation on a specific resource: making a design symmetric across a plane, with the low x/z side mirrored onto the high side. This clearly distinguishes it from all listed siblings, none of which perform symmetry operations.

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 operation implies when it would be used—when a design should be made symmetric—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, prerequisites for calling it, or when not to use it.

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