mirror_bones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds one behavioral trait: it requires a UI, which is useful for headless contexts. However, it does not explain the actual mirroring behavior (e.g., whether it creates new bones or overwrites existing ones). The added value over annotations is minimal but present.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence without unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and the UI requirement. There is no structural formatting, but for such a short description it is acceptable. It does not waste words.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and the existence of many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify what 'symmetrize armature bones' entails (e.g., does it duplicate bones, flip them, or remove them?). It also lacks guidance on when to use this tool instead of 'apply_symmetry' or other armature tools. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description does not help the agent understand return values or side effects.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of 'axis' or 'armature_name'. While 'armature_name' is self-explanatory, 'axis' remains ambiguous (its valid values and meaning are not documented). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Simetrikan tulang armature' is a specific verb+resource combination, clearly indicating the tool mirrors/symmetrizes armature bones. It is concise and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_symmetry', which could have a similar function, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 only usage hint is 'memerlukan UI' (requires UI), which imposes a constraint but does not clarify when to use this tool over alternatives. It provides no context on when to mirror bones, prerequisites, or when to avoid this tool. No alternatives are mentioned.

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