Mirror Body

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It implies a geometric transformation but doesn't specify if it creates a new body, modifies the original, or details side effects like requiring specific plane setups. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but offers limited value beyond them.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral outcomes (e.g., what the tool returns or how it affects the scene), and doesn't leverage annotations to fill gaps, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description fails to compensate by explaining 'mirror_plane', 'body_name', or 'body_index'. It mentions 'construction plane' but doesn't clarify how it relates to the enum values (xy, yz, xz) or the other parameters, leaving semantics largely 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 clearly states the action ('mirror') and the resource ('a body across a construction plane'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scale_body' or 'move_body' which also transform bodies, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'scale_body' for resizing or 'move_body' for translation. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing body) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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