sw_mirror

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the semantic that the operation is planar and typically applied to a half-model. It says nothing about whether the result is a new feature, whether it is undoable, or what happens if a referenced feature is suppressed — gaps that matter for a mutating CAD operation.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the modeling rationale trailing it; nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could carry return-value or failure information, and it does not. For a 5-parameter mutation with thin annotations, the definition is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about error cases and result reporting.

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 100%, with doc, name, plane, bodies, and features all documented in-schema. The description only echoes the features/plane/bodies concepts already present, adding no format hints (e.g., acceptable plane aliases beyond the enum-like list) beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource ('Mirror features (or bodies) about a plane') with the scope of what can be mirrored. It does not name any sibling, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why this is preferable to sw_linear_pattern or sw_circular_pattern for symmetric geometry.

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 clause 'build one half of a symmetric part, mirror the rest' gives a concrete modeling scenario that tells the agent when this tool applies. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so the agent must infer that asymmetric or non-planar symmetry is out of scope.

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