zemax_lde_insert_surfaceInsert a new lens data editor surface at a specified zero-based position to modify sequential optical systems in Ansys Zemax OpticStudio.
Insert a surface at a zero-based LDE position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | Yes | Zero-based insertion position |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It never states that inserting a surface shifts the indices of all subsequent surfaces, whether an out-of-range position errors or clamps, whether the operation is undoable, or what the call returns.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (zero-based) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
The single parameter is fully documented and no output schema is expected, so the basic contract is covered. For a mutation tool with zero annotations in a complex optical-design domain, though, the side effects on surface numbering and error behavior are missing.
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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Zero-based insertion position', which the description essentially restates as 'zero-based LDE position'. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does the work and the description adds no new meaning (e.g., valid range or end-of-list behavior).
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 ('Insert') and resource ('surface') plus the positional semantics ('zero-based LDE position'), so an agent knows this mutates the lens data editor. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like zemax_add_surface or zemax_lde_set_surface, leaving the agent to guess which mutation primitive applies.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With zemax_add_surface, zemax_lde_set_surface, and zemax_remove_surface all present, the choice between 'insert', 'add', and 'set' is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.