Remove Operand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states removal but does not mention that the operation is destructive, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it affects the merit function. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 description is a single sentence with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 fully documented parameter and no output schema, so the description is minimally sufficient to invoke it. However, the lack of annotations and the absence of any behavioral context for a destructive operation leaves a gap. The description could do more to explain side effects or expected outcomes.

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 the single parameter 'row' is documented as 'One-based row'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('merit-function operand'), making the tool's action immediately clear. It distinguishes this tool from sibling removal tools like zemax_remove_surface or zemax_nsc_remove_object by specifying the exact object type. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zemax_add_operand, zemax_search_operands, or zemax_delete_configuration_operand. It does not state prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Remove', which is insufficient for routing decisions.

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