rhino_mirror

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not expected to restate that this is a mutating operation. The phrase 'copies by default' adds useful behavioral context about the make_copy default. It does not disclose what happens when make_copy=false, such as whether the original is moved, replaced, or deleted.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and ends with the most important behavioral default, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 transformation tool, the description is minimally adequate: it gives the operation, the geometry reference, and the default copy behavior. The schema and output schema fill in plane structure and return details, but the description omits what happens when make_copy=false and provides no guidance on prerequisites or side effects. These gaps make it incomplete for an agent that must reason about non-default calls.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps well to key parameters: 'objects' to object_ids, 'across a plane' to plane, and 'copies by default' to make_copy. However, it does not explain object_ids selection semantics, doc_id targeting, or plane orientation beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function: mirror objects across a plane. It names the specific verb, resource, and geometric constraint. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling rhino_cmd_mirror, so it stops short of fully distinguishing among alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool instead of sibling transformation tools like rhino_cmd_mirror, rhino_move, or rhino_orient. The only contextual hint is the default copy behavior, which does not help with selection or exclusions.

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