zemax_add_configuration_operandAdd a Multi-Configuration Editor (MCE) operand to automate configuration changes like thickness or curvature in Ansys Zemax OpticStudio.
Add an MCE operand.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param1 | No | Parameter 1 | |
| param2 | No | Parameter 2 | |
| param3 | No | Parameter 3 | |
| insertAt | No | Row; 0 appends | |
| operandType | Yes | THIC, CURV, CONI, PRAM, MOFF, and so on |
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 behavioral burden, and it says nothing: not what state is mutated, whether the operand is appended or inserted (beyond the schema's insertAt), whether permissions or an existing configuration are required, or whether the change is reversible.
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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but it is not concise in the useful sense — it is under-specified. It contains no wasted words because it contains almost no content at all.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, a five-word description is wholly inadequate. Nothing tells the agent how to call it correctly or what the effect of a successful call will be.
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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter detail (nothing about valid operandType values, what param1-3 mean per operand type, or insertAt semantics), so it neither helps nor hurts.
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?
"Add an MCE operand" essentially restates the tool name (add + configuration operand); the only new information is that MCE means the multi-configuration editor. It makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling zemax_mce_add_operand, or from zemax_add_operand (merit-function operands), which is exactly the ambiguity an agent must resolve.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing versus zemax_mce_add_operand, zemax_add_operand, or zemax_mce_add_config. The agent is left to guess whether a configuration must already exist or whether an alternative tool is the correct one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.