Mirror elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully notes that copy=true duplicates first and that 'meshes keep correct winding', but says nothing about whether copy=false mutates existing geometry in place, whether the operation is undoable, or how targets must be selected.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the copy-mode caveat and the winding note. 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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the geometric behavior well but leaves the required targets parameter and the mutation/undo semantics unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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, and it partially does: it clarifies the x-axis/plane=0 defaults and the semantics of copy. However the required 'targets' parameter is entirely undocumented (untyped in the schema, unexplained in prose).

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: 'Reflect elements across an axis-aligned plane (default x=0)'. The reflection action is inherently distinct from neighbors like bb_transform_elements, bb_duplicate_elements and bb_array_elements, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

'copy=true ... is the usual way to build a symmetrical half' gives a useful usage cue for one parameter, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over bb_array_elements or bb_duplicate_elements, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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