fusion_mirror

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It explains the mirror action and offset, but does not clarify whether the operation creates a new body or modifies the original, nor does it mention any limitations (e.g., only planar faces) or potential side effects. This leaves ambiguity about the tool's output behavior.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Mirror the body/feature') and then provides necessary details (plane options, offset purpose). No redundant or filler content; every clause adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (plane selection, offset), the description covers the core semantics but lacks a few completeness elements: it doesn't state whether a new body is created or the original is replaced, doesn't mention that only planar faces are supported, and omits any note about units or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, these gaps leave the agent partially informed.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description is crucial. It explains feature_id as the 'body/feature produced by feature_id', plane as three allowed values, and offset_mm as 'offset along that plane's normal'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention the default values (plane=YZ, offset=0) or units for offset.

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 action: mirror a body/feature across a specified plane, with an optional offset. It uses specific terms like 'mirror', 'body/feature', 'base plane' with enumerated options ('XY', 'XZ', 'YZ'), and distinguishes this from other fusion operations by focusing on the mirror action and offset scenario.

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?

It provides a concrete use case: 'use this for a mirrored pair that isn't touching along the mirror line (e.g. two parts with a real gap between them)'. This tells when to use the offset feature, but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives among the sibling tools, though no direct mirror alternative exists in the list.

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