mirror_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key effects (flips geometry, renames left/right, returns clones) but is ambiguous whether the original is modified or preserved. Missing details on destructive behavior or permissions.

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?

Three sentences: action context, behavioral effects, return value. Front-loaded and no wasted words.

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 4 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and return. Missing edge cases like error handling or prerequisites, but adequate for typical use.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., 'axis about a pivot' matches parameters). Does not explain distinction between 'element' and 'elements'.

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 a cube or group across an axis about a pivot' with specific behavioral details (flips geometry, rotation signs, renames left/right). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on mirroring for symmetric modeling.

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?

Provides context 'build one side of a symmetric model, then mirror it', implying when to use. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, but the usage scenario is clear and sufficient.

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