mirror_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions the selection-based behavior, it does not disclose whether original entities are kept (despite the keep_original parameter), what the axis coordinates represent in the drawing, or whether the operation is destructive. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a transformation tool.

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 exactly two sentences, with the core operation front-loaded. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines the operation, the second gives a practical workflow tip. No redundant or filler words are present.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations. The description only partially covers the mirror axis and selected entities, but omits keep_original behavior and the effect on source entities. For a non-trivial transformation tool, this is under-specified and would leave an agent uncertain about default behavior.

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?

The description adds meaning to x1,y1,x2,y2 by identifying them as a mirror axis and explains that handles=['selection'] uses the GUI selection, which is helpful given 0% schema coverage. However, it completely omits the keep_original parameter and does not specify any other acceptable values for handles, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 'Mirror entities across the axis (x1,y1)-(x2,y2)', which is a specific verb and resource with explicit geometric parameters. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling transformation tools like rotate_entity or copy_entity.

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 'Draw half, mirror the rest' provides a concrete workflow context, implying this tool is used to create symmetric entities. It also notes that handles=['selection'] uses the GUI selection, giving a clear usage hint. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention prerequisites like requiring an active selection.

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