zemax_delete_configuration_operandDelete a row from the Multi-Configuration Editor (MCE) operand list in Zemax OpticStudio. Provide the one-based row number to remove that configuration operand.
Delete an MCE operand row.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| row | Yes | One-based row |
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. 'Delete' implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but the description says nothing about side effects on the multi-configuration editor, row renumbering after deletion, or error behavior for an invalid row index.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why behavioral and usage context is missing.
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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too sparse: it omits what gets deleted, whether the action is reversible, and how failures are surfaced. An agent has only the name and parameter to act on.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'row' parameter is documented as 'One-based row' in the schema, so the description adds no further meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the parameters.
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 (Delete) and resource (MCE operand row), which is enough to separate it from the merit-function operand tools like zemax_remove_operand. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named add/set configuration operand siblings beyond the verb.
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?
No guidance on when to delete versus modify (zemax_set_configuration_operand_value) or add (zemax_add_configuration_operand), and no note about prerequisites such as needing an active configuration. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.