cad_mirror

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses behavioral details: operation matches seed feature and defaults accordingly. It explains planeId flexibility. However, it omits potential effects like whether original features are retained, permissions needed, or parametric behavior.

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 two sentences, efficient and to the point. It front-loads the core purpose and explains key parameters. Slightly more structure (e.g., listing parameters in order) would improve readability.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 7 parameters with 0% schema descriptions, the description covers only a few parameters and lacks details on return values, prerequisites, error handling, or side effects. For a mirroring tool with moderate complexity, this is insufficient.

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 description adds meaning to featureIds, planeId, and operation (including enum guidance). However, it does not explain documentId, workspaceId, elementId, name, or the ADD/INTERSECT enum options. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 action ('Mirror whole features across a plane') and explains key parameters (featureIds, planeId, operation). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like cad_sketch_mirror by specifying 'whole features', but does not explicitly name 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 provides usage context for the operation parameter (default NEW for additive, REMOVE for cuts) and notes that planeId can be standard planes or a face/plane id. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like cad_pattern or cad_sketch_mirror.

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