nx_mirror

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the mirrored body is independent and NOT united with the source. It still leaves some behavior implicit, such as whether the original body is preserved and what the output body identity is, though the output schema may cover return details.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, then adds parameter meaning and the key non-union behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 simple three-parameter CAD operation with an output schema, the definition covers the essential semantics and the most important side effect. A brief explicit note about body_id and source-body preservation would make it fully complete.

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 explains that plane selects XY/XZ/YZ and that offset shifts the plane along its normal in millimeters with a default of 0; body_id is only implied by 'Mirror a body' rather than explicitly defined.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mirror a body about a datum plane.' It clearly distinguishes this operation from nx_unite by explaining that the result is independent and not merged.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative for the common merge case: use nx_unite if the mirrored body should be joined to the source. It does not cover broader usage guidance such as prerequisites or when to choose mirroring versus other duplication-style operations.

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