Mirror geometry

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but not that mirroring is a model-mutating feature operation, that it creates new geometry, or that it depends on a valid plane selection. No side effects, failure behavior, or validation behavior are mentioned.

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, tightly written sentence with a clear verb, object, and target. There is no redundant wording or repetition of the title.

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?

With nine parameters, four required, and no output schema, a one-line description is insufficient context. The parameter schema covers field semantics, but the description does not clarify key operational details such as how plane_query and plane_ids relate, what entities expects, or what happens after mirroring.

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 parameters already have meaningful documentation. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond naming parts, bodies, facesainer and plane, but the schema fully compensates, yielding the baseline score.

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') with a specific resource ('parts, bodies or faces') and a clear spatial target ('across a plane'). It stands apart from sibling feature-construction tools and directly tells an agent what operation this tool performs.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer from the tool name and one-liner that this is the mirror operation, and nothing explains how it relates to similar geometry-modification tools.

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