Save Merit Function File

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 whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the directory must exist, whether the write requires a connected Zemax session, or what happens on failure.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter persistence call.

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 (one required param, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers the basic action. However, for a filesystem write it omits overwrite semantics and any session/connection requirement, leaving a small but real gap.

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?

Only one parameter (filePath) and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as an 'Absolute .MF file path'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (merit function) with the target artifact (.MF file), which cleanly separates it from zemax_load_merit_function_file. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so it is clear but not maximally disambiguating.

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 zemax_save_file (full system save) or zemax_load_merit_function_file. Nothing is said about prerequisites, such as needing a merit function already defined via zemax_get_merit_function or the operand tools.

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