mirror_feature

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 a non-obvious failure mode (SolidWorks reporting a feature even when nothing was mirrored) and the volume-comparison verification that turns that into an error. It does not state whether the operation is destructive or requires an active document, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line; the second paragraph is longer but its content (volume verification) is genuinely non-obvious and earns its space. Minor redundancy in restating the mirror step.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key behavioral caveat an agent needs (false-success guard) and the operating sequence. Auth/permission expectations and active-document requirements are unstated, a modest gap.

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 100% and the nested parameters (features, mirror_plane, merge, mirror_bodies) are already richly documented in the schema, including the lofted-wing naming caveat. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Mirror solid bodies or features about a plane') and scopes it to solid bodies/features, which implicitly distinguishes it from sketch_mirror and pattern_circular. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence explains the operational sequence (select sources and plane, then mirror), which implies usage, and the mirror_bodies note hints at when a feature mirror fails. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs sketch_mirror/pattern_circular routing or preconditions.

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