nx_mirror

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the mirrored body is created as an independent body and is NOT united with the source, and explains how offset moves the mirror plane. It does not explicitly state whether the source body is preserved, but the wording strongly implies that the source is not consumed.

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 three sentences, each delivering distinct value: the core operation, the parameter semantics, and the resulting body relationship with an alternative tool reference. There is no filler or redundant restating of the parameter schema.

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?

The description covers the main operational semantics, names the relevant sibling tool, and explains the effect of both custom parameters. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. The only small gap is that it does not explicitly state whether the source body is left unchanged, though it is reasonably implied.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining plane's enum values and offset's meaning in mm with a default of 0. body_id is left to inference from its name and the phrase 'a body,' which is a minor gap but not a serious one given the tool's purpose.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Mirror a body about a datum plane,' and immediately clarifies the plane options. It also distinguishes itself from related operations by stating that the mirrored body is independent and not united with the source, which separates it from merge/boolean tools like nx_unite.

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?

It provides clear context for the operation and explicitly names the alternative when merging is required: 'use nx_unite if merging is required.' It does not enumerate all situations where mirroring should or should not be used, but the operation is specific enough that this minimal guidance is reasonably sufficient.

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