Create a reflected copy of a mesh across a chosen axis and plane point, swap left/right names, and keep normals outward.
Make a mirrored copy of a mesh across the plane at at on the axis. Normals stay outward. The name swaps
L/R, Left/Right (arm_L becomes arm_R), or gets '_mirror'. The origin of the copy is the mirror image of the source
origin; the copy has no rotation and scale 1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | ||
| axis | No | X | |
| name | Yes | ||
| new_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite annotations only covering the safety profile, the description discloses rich behavioral traits: normals remain outward, origin/rotation/scale of the copy, and the exact name-swapping rules. This is far beyond what the annotations provide and genuinely informs the outcome.
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?
Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation before the naming and origin details. Every sentence adds distinct information with no padding.
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 transformation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced, how it is oriented, how it is named, and its transform state. An agent has everything needed to predict the result.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains 'at' and 'axis' implicitly and describes naming behavior, but never distinguishes the required 'name' (source) from the optional 'new_name' override, leaving the relationship between the two name params ambiguous.
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 ('Make a mirrored copy of a mesh') plus axis/plane scope, which clearly separates it from the generic 'duplicate' sibling. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the 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?
The description implies the use case (producing a mirrored copy) but names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance versus siblings like 'duplicate', 'array', or 'radial_array'. Usage is inferable but not routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.