Scale Lens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not say whether scaling mutates the in-memory lens in place or persists to file, whether the change is reversible, whether it applies to all surfaces unless firstComponent/lastComponent narrow the range, or what units the factor is relative to.

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 filler and the two capabilities stated up front. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a six-parameter mutation tool; the odd 'disposable lens' wording slightly dilutes precision.

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?

A mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs more than one sentence. Missing are the interaction between mode and its two dependent parameters, the component-range scoping, timeout behavior, and any note on what the lens state looks like afterward.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the two mode concepts but adds no constraint beyond the schema — it never clarifies the factor/units coupling with mode or the inclusive/exclusive semantics of firstComponent/lastComponent.

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 ('scale') and resource ('lens') and even names the two supported operations (factor scaling vs. unit conversion), which matches the mode enum. It does not distinguish itself from related unit/system tools such as zemax_set_system_units, and the phrase 'disposable lens' is an unusual qualifier that could confuse an agent about what is being scaled.

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 implies two branches (factor vs. unit conversion) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the mode enum that exactly one of scaleFactor/scaleToUnit should accompany each mode, and nothing tells it when scaling is appropriate versus using a unit-setting tool.

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