mirror_object

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds important behavioral context beyond that: mirroring flips normals, with an export-time caution. It also clarifies that cloneType can spawn copies, which is useful for predicting side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by cloneType and the normals warning. The bilingual duplication doubles length, but both versions are compact and structurally clear.

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 schema fully documents all parameters, annotations cover the destructive nature, and the description adds the critical normals side effect. Without an output schema, a brief return-value note would be ideal, but the definition is still sufficient for correct invocation.

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 fully documented. The description mostly restates cloneType and axis behavior without adding meaning materially beyond 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 names a specific verb and resource: mirror objects across the X/Y/Z plane, with an explicit effect (flips that axis scale and repositions). It clearly separates this from sibling tools like transform_object or mod_symmetry by describing the plane-mirror mechanism.

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 intended use is implied: use this when you need to mirror objects across a plane. However, the description does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as mod_symmetry or transform_object, nor does it state when not to use it.

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