mirror_mesh_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that winding order is reversed, output_path defaults to overwriting the input, the inline 3D stage is opened, and oversized meshes are decimated. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the core operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains behavior in two clear paragraphs. The inline 3D stage paragraph is slightly verbose but provides necessary context about preview behavior and decimation. No wasted words, but could be tightened.

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 simplicity and absence of annotations/output schema, the description covers the key aspects: the operation, parameter semantics, default overwrite behavior, and post-success UI behavior. It omits error conditions and output dict structure details, but overall it is substantially complete for a mesh mirroring tool.

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 description provides parameter-by-parameter details that exceed the schema: it explains that file_path is the STL file, axis must be 'x', 'y', or 'z' with default 'x', and output_path defaults to overwriting the input. This semantic context is critical because schema coverage is 0%.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mirror (reflect) a mesh along an axis.' It clearly states the operation and differentiates from sibling tools like rotate_model or rescale_model by focusing on reflection and normal preservation.

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 tool's purpose is clear and implies when to use it (when a mirrored mesh is needed), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so guidance is only implied.

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