Creates a mirror feature in a native SOLIDWORKS model across a specified plane, optionally mirroring selected features with an offset and returning verification evidence.
Add mirror through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine. Public geometry units are mm, degrees and kg. Inspect verified measurements and error evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Mirror | |
| plane | Yes | ||
| features | No | ||
| offset_mm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the unit system (mm, degrees, kg) and the promise of verified measurements and error evidence in the response. It still does not explain what the destructive flag means here (e.g., whether the source features are consumed or a new feature is added) or what happens on failure.
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 with the operation stated first and the supporting metadata after it; nothing is padded or repeated. The brevity is efficient, though the second and third sentences read as generic boilerplate applicable to many sibling tools.
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?
This is a destructive mutation tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, yet the description explains none of the parameter semantics or invocation prerequisites. For an agent to call it correctly it needs at minimum to know what form 'plane' takes and what the 'features' array contains.
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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. Only the unit for offset_mm is implied by the units sentence; the required 'plane' parameter (a plane name? a reference?) and the 'features' array are left completely 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource (add a mirror feature) and identifies the engine executing it, so an agent can tell what operation is being performed. It does not, however, distinguish this from pattern-style siblings such as add_linear_pattern or add_circular_pattern, nor does it say what is being mirrored (features vs. bodies).
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an active document or a preselected body/feature set, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer invocation conditions entirely from the schema and annotations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.