zemax_mce_add_operandAppends an operand to the Multi-Configuration Editor (MCE) in Zemax OpticStudio by operand type and optional per-configuration values.
Legacy wrapper to append an MCE operand.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param1 | No | Primary parameter | |
| values | No | Per-configuration values | |
| operandType | Yes | MCE operand type |
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. It does not say whether this mutates the open file, whether a connection/open file is required, whether the operand is appended at the end or at the current row, or what happens on failure.
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 padding is appropriately front-loaded. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — it is terse without being informative.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits prerequisites (open file/connection), the meaning of "MCE" context, valid operand types, and the deprecation path implied by "legacy." An agent has too little to call 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%, so operandType, param1, and values are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, valid operand-type values, or units beyond what structured data already supplies.
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?
It pairs a specific verb ("append") with a specific resource ("MCE operand"), which is better than a tautology. But "legacy wrapper" is unexplained and there is no differentiation from siblings such as zemax_add_configuration_operand, zemax_add_operand, or zemax_mce_add_config, so an agent cannot route confidently.
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 when-to-use guidance at all. The word "legacy" strongly implies a preferred alternative exists, yet no replacement tool, deprecation guidance, or prerequisite condition is named, leaving the agent to guess between several add-operand siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.