Create a mirrored copy of CAD entities across the line p1-p2, retaining originals unless delete_source is true.
Mirror entities across the line p1-p2 (keeps the originals unless delete_source).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| p1 | Yes | [x, y] or [x, y, z] | |
| p2 | Yes | [x, y] or [x, y, z] | |
| handles | Yes | Entity handles (hex strings) | |
| delete_source | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description usefully explains the default source-preserving behavior that justifies the non-destructive hint, but says nothing about permissions, what happens to the originals when delete_source=true, or how the mirror is computed in 3D.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs the operation, the axis, and the default behavior with no filler.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description is nearly complete for a 4-parameter transform, though it could note the optional destructive behavior enabled by delete_source.
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 coverage is 75%, and the description compensates for the one undocumented parameter by explaining delete_source's effect on the originals. p1/p2 and handles formats are already covered by the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (mirror), the resource (entities), and the exact transform axis (the line p1-p2), which cleanly separates it from siblings like move_entities, rotate_entities and copy_entities.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'keeps the originals unless delete_source' hints at the copy-vs-move distinction but never states when to choose this over copy_entities or offset_entity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.