plasticity_mirror

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully explains the nature of that destruction ('moving the originals'). However, it omits other behavioral traits the annotations don't cover: the effect of the keepOriginal default (true), the concurrency/revision requirement, and any reversibility or undo notes.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded and the copy/move distinction is appended where it is most useful.

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 destructive mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, six undocumented-by-schema parameters, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves body selection, the revision/concurrency contract, and the keepOriginal default undocumented, which an agent needs before invoking it safely.

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% across six parameters, so the description carries full burden. It conveys the semantics of keepOriginal (copy vs. move) and implies the plane parameters (planeOriginMm/planeNormal), but says nothing about ids (which bodies) or the required revision token, leaving roughly half the parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mirror exact bodies') plus the operation's scope ('across a world-space plane'), so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like plasticity_duplicate_bodies or plasticity_split_solid_by_plane, which also create/relocate geometry.

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 phrase 'either copying or moving the originals' implies the copy-vs-move decision that the keepOriginal parameter controls, giving indirect usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against siblings such as duplicate_bodies or move, and no stated prerequisites despite a required revision token.

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