mirror_feature

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it omits key details: whether the original is kept or modified, whether new geometry is created, or if the operation is destructive. It also doesn't mention any side effects like feature dependencies or invalid states.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately concise and easy to read. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, so while it is efficient, it is not optimally structured for comprehension.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the behavior (e.g., whether a new feature is added), the need for an existing construction plane, or the nature of the mirrored result. The tool has 3 parameters but only one is partially explained.

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 clarify parameters. It does explain the allowed values for 'plane' (xy, xz, yz, or construction plane name), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it leaves 'feature_or_body' and 'name' unexplained; 'feature_or_body' is critical and its format is unknown.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Mirror a feature or body across a plane.' It specifies the resource (feature or body) and the operation (mirror), and gives plane options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pattern_circular or pattern_rectangular, which handle pattern replication, not mirroring.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description simply states the operation and plane choices without explaining context, such as whether a construction plane must be created first or if mirroring is preferred over other symmetry methods.

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