mirror

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and partially meets it: it defines the offset direction and that fuse=true yields the union rather than two separate bodies, and it gives units (mm). It never says whether the original object is kept, whether a new object is created under result_name, or whether the operation is reversible — key facts for a mutating geometry 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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the core transformation and its orientation convention are front-loaded, and the fuse behavior follows as a secondary qualifier.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the non-obvious geometry parameters are explained. The remaining gap is the mutation contract (original retained or replaced) and the identity of doc/name/result_name, which an agent can likely infer from sibling conventions but is not confirmed here.

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. It does well on plane (enum meaning per axis), plane_offset (mm along the normal), and fuse (union semantics), but leaves doc, name, and result_name — three of four required parameters — completely undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (mirror an object) plus the exact transformation semantics: world-aligned plane, offset along the plane normal, and the plane-to-axis mapping. An agent can distinguish this from transform, boolean, and the pattern tools without opening any 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?

Implied usage is clear (use when a mirrored copy is wanted, optionally fused into one body), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as linear_pattern with two instances or transform with a reflection. Guidance is inferable, not stated.

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