Mce Add Config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short. It never states that this mutates the lens/MCE state, whether the change is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it interacts with the current configuration count. The 'legacy' hint is the only behavioral signal, and it is not actionable without naming the replacement.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and 'legacy wrapper' spends the sentence's only content on implementation trivia instead of usage-relevant information.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine side effects, deprecation status, or the relationship to sibling configuration tools, all of which it must know to invoke this 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%, and withPickups is documented in the schema as 'Link new cells with pickups', so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about what a pickup link implies or when to enable it, but it is not required to given full schema coverage.

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 verb 'append' and resource 'configuration' are identifiable, but 'legacy wrapper' frames the tool in terms of its implementation history rather than what it does. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as zemax_set_number_of_configurations, zemax_add_configuration_operand, or zemax_mce_add_operand, so an agent cannot tell from the description which one to pick.

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 is given. The word 'legacy' implies a preferred modern alternative exists, but that alternative is never named, so the agent is left to guess whether this tool should be used at all. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are stated.

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