symmetrize_mesh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful traits — local-axis operation, the centre-line merge threshold, and that CURRENT depends on a prior select_* call — but never states that the operation destructively rewrites existing geometry, whether it is undoable, or whether it acts on the active object only.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a use case, then per-argument detail — exactly the order an agent needs. No sentence is redundant, and the Args block earns its space given zero schema description coverage.

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, and the description still notes the return dict contents, which is fine. The main remaining gap is the destructiveness/undo profile of a geometry-rewriting operation with no annotations to cover it.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully: direction is explained directionally for each enum (NEGATIVE_X copies -X onto +X), threshold is given meaning and a 0.0-1.0 range, and selection explains ALL vs CURRENT with the prerequisite select_* tools named.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Make a mesh symmetrical by copying one half onto the other') and immediately clarifies the mechanism (half-copy) rather than a vague 'symmetrize'. It doesn't name a sibling to distinguish itself from (e.g., set_sculpt_symmetry, add_modifier with Mirror), so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence supplies concrete when-to-use scenarios: repairing drift and completing a half-modelled object. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., mirror modifier vs. sculpt symmetry), so context is clear but routing is not fully disambiguated.

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