rig_mirror_bone_chain

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

Adds the important safety detail that the original chain is left untouched and the mirrored chain receives new names, which goes beyond the readOnly/destructive hints. However, with destructiveHint=true it does not disclose any possible overwrite/collision behavior or what would happen if target names already exist.

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?

Two short bilingual sentences, with the core operation and the original-chain guarantee front-loaded. The English translation repeats the Chinese content, which is useful for multilingual agents but adds slight redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, scope, and side-effect guarantee. It does not describe return values or error states, but those are not required given the absent output schema and fairly simple resource.

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?

Input schema already documents all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'auto-rename _L/_R' reinforces the suffix params but doesn't add new semantic details such as axis sign conventions or naming behavior beyond defaults.

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?

States a specific verb ('mirror'), resource ('a whole bone chain'), and behavior ('auto-rename _L/_R'), and adds the key guarantee that the original chain is untouched. This makes it easy to tell apart from generic mirror_object or rig_create_bone_chain without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the most common and tedious manual job for mirroring arms/legs, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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