fusion_mirror

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false), but the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the original body is preserved or if a new body is created.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No unnecessary words, though slightly more detail could be added without losing conciseness.

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 simple tool with few parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat adequate but missing details like the effect (mirror copy vs transform) and behavior in model history.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the plane parameter by listing options (xy/xz/yz) but does not clarify the 'body' parameter type or how to select it. Minimal added value over the schema.

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) and the target (a body) and specifies the available planes (xy/xz/yz). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fusion_move_body or fusion_scale_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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to mirror a body) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or context.

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