Add Operand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that an operand is added, but does not disclose validation behavior, duplicate handling, persistence, or any required permissions/connection state. This is minimal mutation disclosure only.

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 front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately terse, though it offers no structural aids for navigating the 12-parameter complexity.

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?

This is a 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain valid operand mnemonics, insert behavior, defaults, or how to discover operands via siblings, leaving the definition inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents all 12 parameters, even if many descriptions are generic. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 when structured fields carry the load.

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 gives a specific verb ("Add") and resource ("optimization operand") plus the context that it is added to the merit function. It clearly distinguishes the core action from read/remove tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like zemax_add_configuration_operand or zemax_mce_add_operand.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there prerequisites such as needing an open system or connected session. The intended use is only implied by the phrase "merit function."

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