Remove Surface

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 does not disclose that removal is destructive and irreversible, that subsequent surface indices shift, whether the surface must be unlocked or unused, or what the call returns on failure. 'Remove' hints at mutation but nothing more.

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 zero waste. It is structurally fine; its brevity is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness problem, so it is not penalized heavily here.

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 structural mutation on a lens model, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out the consequences of removal and any safety or ordering constraints. An agent could invoke it correctly syntactically but has no basis for judging the side effects.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'surfaceNumber' as 'Surface number to remove'. The description adds no numbering convention, range, or base-index information beyond that, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Remove a sequential surface'), and the word 'sequential' does implicitly separate it from zemax_nsc_remove_object. However, it adds nothing beyond the title 'Remove Surface' apart from that one qualifier; there is no detail about what removal entails or which surface model it applies to.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is preferred over zemax_lde_insert_surface/zemax_add_surface workflows or when a surface must not be removed (e.g., the image or object surface).

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