Remove Material Catalog

Does 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 implies mutation but says nothing about reversibility, whether removal fails when the catalog is in active use, what happens to dependent glass definitions, or permission requirements.

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 clean, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing behavioral detail.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose consequences of removal and failure modes. The single parameter is fully covered by the schema, but the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a delete-style operation is absent.

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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents catalogName including the notable '.agf extension' nuance. The description adds nothing beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (Remove) and resource (material catalog) scoped to the current optical system, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like zemax_add_material_catalog or zemax_get_glass_catalogs, which an agent must infer from names alone.

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 versus the obvious inverse (zemax_add_material_catalog) or how it relates to catalog inspection via zemax_get_glass_catalogs. No prerequisites are stated, such as whether the catalog must first be loaded or whether glasses referencing it must be removed.

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