Mirror a body across a selected plane or planar face to create a symmetric copy. Specify the reference plane to generate the mirrored geometry.
Mirror the current body about a plane or planar face.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name for the resulting feature. | |
| plane | No | Reference token of the mirror plane, e.g. 'yz' or 'face#2'. | yz |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds that the operation acts on the current body and accepts a plane or planar face, but it does not disclose whether the result is a new feature, replaces the body, or how the original is affected.
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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core operation is immediately visible.
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 tool is simple, the schema documents both parameters, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits the outcome of the operation (new feature vs. modified body) and does not state what the tool returns, which matters since no output schema is present.
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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema's own descriptions of 'Name' and 'plane'.
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 uses a specific verb ('Mirror') with a clear resource ('the current body') and qualifying geometry ('about a plane or planar face'). It distinguishes the operation from broader transform/list tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with a sibling like catia_transform_body.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies the prerequisite of an active/current body and the need for a plane reference, but it never states exclusions or directs the agent to sibling tools for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.