mirror_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the copy is 'linked' and that sewing can optionally be copied, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't explain what 'linked' implies (e.g., propagation of edits, reversibility) or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The key action and distinguishing features are front-loaded, and it is appropriate for the tool's simplicity. This is an efficient definition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and optional flag. However, the required pattern_index parameter is not explained, the term 'piece' is ambiguous, and the meaning of 'linked' is left vague. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles and types), so the description must compensate. It connects 'optionally copying its sewing' to the with_sewing parameter, but says nothing about pattern_index, what constitutes a 'piece', or how to obtain a valid index. This leaves the required parameter under-explained.

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 ('Create') and a clear resource ('symmetric (mirrored, linked) copy of a piece') that conveys the core operation. The word 'linked' hints at a distinguishing behavior, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like copy_pattern or flip_pattern. Overall, the purpose is clear but not fully distinguished from related tools.

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 versus copy_pattern or flip_pattern, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description. No explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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