cascadeur_mirror

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds the prerequisite about valid mirror mappings, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what gets overwritten or changed (e.g., existing keys, curves, or transforms), which is notable for a destructive tool.

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 concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the requirement. No wasteful words. It could arguably be slightly more detailed, but it is efficient and well-structured.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain the effect on existing animation data, the exact behavior of the interval flag, or how the objects array constrains the operation. An agent cannot fully predict what will be modified, which is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 must compensate. It links the interval parameter to 'current frame or selected interval' but does not explain the objects parameter—what objects mean, how they are identified (names, paths), or how they map to 'explicit controls'. The interval parameter is partially explained, but the primary required parameter remains semantically opaque.

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 states a specific action ('mirror') applied to a resource ('explicit controls') with a time scope ('current frame or selected interval'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which perform mirroring. However, 'explicit controls' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be more precise (e.g., naming the object types or rig components affected).

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 implies usage by naming the action and prerequisite ('Requires valid mirror mappings on the rig'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like set_pose or animate_transforms, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions that would rule out other tools. Usage is implied rather than clearly instructed.

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