zemax_nsc_save_detectorSave detector data from a specified non-sequential detector object to a type-compatible file, with optional overwrite for existing files.
Save detector data to a type-compatible detector data file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Destination detector data file | |
| overwrite | No | Overwrite existing file | |
| objectNumber | Yes | Detector object number |
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 does not disclose permissions, error conditions, what 'type-compatible' means, or the effect of the overwrite parameter. Only the basic save action is stated.
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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words.
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 save operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is sparse. It omits critical details such as format compatibility requirements, overwrite behavior, failure modes, and whether objectNumber must reference an existing detector.
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 all three parameters (filePath, overwrite, objectNumber) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.
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 (save) and resource (detector data) with the modifier 'type-compatible detector data file'. This is clear but does not distinguish from the sibling zemax_nsc_load_detector, which is the inverse operation, nor does it explain what 'type-compatible' means.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'type-compatible' implies some precondition but does not define it. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.