zemax_lde_set_surfaceSets radius, thickness, material, semi-diameter, and comment for a specified surface in Zemax lens data editor.
Legacy wrapper for editing common surface properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| radius | No | Radius | |
| comment | No | Comment | |
| surface | Yes | Zero-based surface | |
| material | No | Material | |
| thickness | No | Thickness | |
| semiDiameter | No | Semi-diameter |
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 says 'editing' but doesn't state whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified properties, whether the surface must exist, or what permissions are required. 'Legacy wrapper' hints at deprecation but gives no concrete behavioral detail.
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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded but underspecified rather than concise-and-complete; still, nothing is wasted.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits return behavior, error conditions, and the relationship to the non-legacy surface setters, leaving the agent to guess how to call it correctly.
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%, with each of the 6 parameters documented in the schema (albeit minimally, e.g. 'Radius', 'Comment'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 verb (editing) and resource (surface properties), but 'Legacy wrapper' adds ambiguity about whether this is the preferred tool. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like zemax_set_surface, zemax_set_surface_parameter, or zemax_set_surface_type, all of which also edit surface data.
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 use this versus zemax_set_surface or zemax_set_surface_parameter. The 'Legacy wrapper' label implies it may be superseded, but it never says by what or when to prefer the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.