mirror

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavior beyond the basic purpose: it does not say whether the original features remain, whether new features are created, or what happens to dependent geometry.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It packs the operation, source of feature names, plane options, and face-point format efficiently.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a feature-creating mutation tool, the description is thin on behavioral consequences and usage context relative to sibling pattern/feature tools.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does this well for all three inputs: features are names from get_feature_tree, plane accepts front/top/right or a named plane, and face_point is an [x, y, z] point in mm.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Mirrors features ... about a plane." It is clearly distinguishable from generic pattern tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with linear_pattern or circular_pattern.

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 implies the tool's use for mirroring existing features and helpfully points to get_feature_tree for source names. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus pattern tools and does not state prerequisites such as selecting a plane or face first.

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