mirroredReflect a PartDesign feature across a chosen plane—origin, datum, or face—to create a symmetric copy for balanced designs.
Mirror a PartDesign feature across a plane.
plane: 'XY'|'XZ'|'YZ' for body origin planes, a datum-plane handle string, or {handle, face: tag|'FaceN'} for a face-defined mirror plane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Mirrored | |
| plane | No | YZ | |
| feature | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral detail about the accepted plane forms, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or how the mirrored feature relates to the original.
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 compact and well-structured: one sentence states the operation, and the second provides the only non-obvious parameter syntax. There is no filler, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and plane syntax adequately. However, an agent still lacks guidance on how to reference the input feature and what the result of the operation will be, making the definition sufficient but not complete.
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 carries the documentation burden. It explains the plane parameter's allowed formats in detail, which is valuable, but it does not clarify the required 'feature' parameter or the optional 'name' parameter beyond their schema titles.
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 uses a specific verb ('Mirror') and a specific resource ('a PartDesign feature'), and further clarifies the operation by describing the plane types accepted. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling feature-modification tools like pad, pocket, linear_pattern, or polar_pattern.
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 clear context: this tool is used when mirroring a PartDesign feature across a plane, and it explains the plane options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it provides enough context that an agent can correctly select it without misleading guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.