Nsc Remove Object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the removal action. It omits whether removal is permanent, whether object indices shift, what permissions are required, or what happens on invalid input—critical gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is appropriate for a simple tool. Its extreme brevity, however, leaves no room for the behavioral context that would make it fully useful.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter, and the schema fully documents that parameter, so an agent can invoke it correctly. However, because no annotations are present, the description should still disclose destructive side effects and prerequisites, which it does not.

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%: objectNumber is documented as a 'One-based object number' in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics for this parameter, so the baseline score of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('non-sequential object'), which distinguishes it from sequential removal tools like zemax_remove_surface. It does not explicitly contrast with immediate siblings such as zemax_nsc_add_object or zemax_nsc_clear_detectors, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing object number), nor when not to use it, leaving all routing to inference from the name and schema.

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