mirror

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that normals stay outward, that the copy's origin is the mirror image of the source origin, and that the copy has no rotation and scale 1. It does not state whether the source mesh is retained or what happens on name collisions, but the disclosed traits are unusually rich for a mutation 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and plane, then the naming rule and the transform guarantees. Every clause carries information an agent needs; 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 operation, orientation, naming, and resulting transform. Missing only the fate of the source mesh and any selection/permission prerequisites, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 explains `at` (plane position on the axis), `axis` implicitly via X/Y/Z plane, and the naming behavior tied to `name`/`new_name` (L/R swap, Left/Right swap, or '_mirror' suffix). It does not explicitly map the `new_name` parameter to the override case, leaving a small gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: 'Make a mirrored copy of a mesh across the plane at `at` on the axis.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like duplicate and array by naming the mirroring operation and its plane/axis semantics.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent can infer this is for producing symmetric copies — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as `duplicate`, and no prerequisite information (e.g. whether the source must be selected).

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