Mirror Entity

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

Annotations already establish non-read-only and non-destructive hints, so the description only needs to add extra behavior. It adds that a mirrored copy is returned, but it does not mention the effect of delete_original (preserving or deleting the original) or any other side effects. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler: the operation, the mirror-line definition, and the return behavior are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 six-parameter transform with complete schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description plus structured data is largely sufficient. The only notable omission is explicit linkage between delete_original and the original entity's fate, though the schema default already covers this.

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%, with each parameter (handle, x1, y1, x2, y2, delete_original) already documented. The description's mention of a line defined by two points maps to x1/y1/x2/y2 but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Mirror an entity') and the geometric method ('across a line defined by two points'), plus the output ('returns the mirrored copy'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling transforms like entity_move, entity_copy, and entity_rotate.

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 description implies the obvious use case—mirroring an entity—but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as entity_copy or entity_rotate, nor any exclusions or conditions. Usage is implied by the operation name rather than stated.

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