mirror_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not clarify whether mirroring modifies the object in place, creates a mirrored copy, or affects linked instances, nor does it mention undo behavior or any required selection state. The axis and center semantics are useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The operation and axis options are stated immediately and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits whether the operation mutates in place, what happens on failure, and what 'object' refers to, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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 meaningfully explains the axis parameter as x, y, or z, but it never explains what kind of identifier 'object' expects or how the default axis behaves. The most important parameter remains undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Mirror an object across its own center', and adds the scope 'axis x, y or z'. It is clearer than the bare name, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as transform_object, orient_object, or duplicate_object.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It implies the operation is for mirroring but never tells the agent when to choose it over transform_object, duplicate_object, or align_objects.

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