Batch insert or delete ordinary spherical surfaces and set the aperture stop in simple CODE V lenses, then read back and verify changes.
对本服务新建的简单镜头批量插入或删除普通球面、设置光阑，回读并核对恢复。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lens | No | ||
| steps | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| applied | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| rolled_back | No | ||
| restore_point | No | ||
| session_valid | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a readback/verify-and-restore step (回读并核对恢复), but for a destructive structural mutation it never states reversibility, atomicity across the batch, permission requirements, or what happens to existing surfaces. The behavioral picture is left largely unspecified.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the scope and the operation set. Nothing is padded, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than tightly informative.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the scope plus operation types are covered. However, with no annotations on a mutation tool and no parameter guidance, the definition leaves meaningful gaps 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps to the three operation kinds (insert_sphere, delete_surface, set_stop) without explaining fields like glass, radius, thickness, before_surface, or new_stop_surface. The one useful schema note ('native CODE V numbers') lives in the schema, not the description.
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 specific verbs and resources: batch insert/delete ordinary spherical surfaces and set the aperture stop on simple lenses created by this service. This distinguishes it from the general update_lens sibling, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.
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?
It scopes usage to 'simple lenses newly created by this service' (对本服务新建的简单镜头), which implies when the tool applies, but it never names an alternative such as update_lens or states when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.