Mirror elements

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

Far exceeds the annotations: it discloses that mirroring flips wall/door opening sides and object handedness, describes the exact return shape for both edit-in-place and copy modes, and enumerates the locked/hidden-layer/hotlinked/Teamwork cases that yield errors instead of edits. This is rich, decision-relevant behavioral context beyond destructiveHint=true.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then mirror-line options, then copy semantics, then return/error behavior. Sentences are long but every one carries information; minor compression would help but nothing is 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?

Despite no output schema, the description documents the return payload shape, input-order results, warning-vs-error semantics, copy-style result fields, and edge-case error reporting. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents axis, axisStart/axisEnd, through, copy, and includeGroupMembers. The description restates the either/or relationship between axis and axisStart/axisEnd and the default 'centre of the elements' bounding box', but adds little syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Mirrors elements of ANY type across a line in plan') with a UI anchor (Edit > Move > Mirror). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling transforms like rotate_elements, move_elements, and copy_elements.

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?

Gives clear context for the copy=true variant ('keeps the originals and creates mirrored copies, e.g. the other half of a symmetric plan'). However, it never names alternative tools (rotate_elements/copy_elements) or states when NOT to use it, so it falls short of explicit when-not/alternatives routing.

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