ft_mirror_shape_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It describes the mirroring action and auto-generation of target shape, but does not explicitly state that it creates a new shape key or whether it modifies existing data. The safety profile is partially conveyed but lacks explicit mutation details.

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 very concise—6 lines with a clear purpose statement, a usage example, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and provides an example. It is self-contained and leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to misuse.

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 adds significant meaning to all four parameters beyond the schema titles: mesh_name is explained, source_shape and target_shape are clearly described with auto-generation behavior, and axis gets an explanation of default and options. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 clearly states the tool mirrors a shape key from one side to another with an explicit example (Left→Right). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from siblings like ft_sculpt_shape_key or ft_combine_shape_keys.

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 provides a concrete usage scenario ('Sculpt mouthSmileLeft, then mirror to mouthSmileRight automatically'), making it clear when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools by name.

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