zemax_nsc_set_object_parameterSet a type-specific non-sequential object parameter in Zemax OpticStudio by object number and parameter column to configure NSC optical systems.
Set a type-specific NSC object parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Numeric or string value | |
| parameter | Yes | One-based parameter column | |
| objectNumber | Yes | One-based 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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a mutation, but the description says nothing about permissions, reversibility, error behavior, or what happens to existing values. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it is perhaps too terse to be fully helpful, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the definition is not complete enough. It does not explain required state, valid parameter ranges, error behavior, or side effects, so an agent lacks important context for safe invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well, including one-based object and parameter columns. The description adds only that the parameter is type-specific, which is useful context but minimal. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clear verb (Set) and resource (NSC object parameter) and notes that the parameter is type-specific. It is distinguishable from get_object_parameter and set_object, but does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it falls 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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of required system state. It only states what the tool does, leaving all usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.