Set Aspheric Surface

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important trait that the surface is converted to Even Asphere (a real type mutation), but it says nothing about what gets overwritten by the conversion, whether coefficients are optional, or that the *Variable flags mark terms as optimization variables.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its terseness is arguably insufficient given a 19-parameter mutation tool.

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 19-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the purpose of the variable flags, the optionality of coefficients, and any post-conversion side effects an agent would need to call it safely.

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 each of the 19 parameters is already self-documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description confirms the conic/alpha coefficient family but adds no syntax, range, or interaction detail (e.g., relationship between alphaN and alphaNVariable) beyond the schema.

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 compound verb ('Convert to Even Asphere and set conic and alpha coefficients') and a clear resource, so an agent knows it both changes the surface type and populates coefficients. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely-named siblings like zemax_get_aspheric_surface or zemax_set_surface_type, leaving the 'read vs. write' and 'type-change vs. coefficient-set' boundaries to be inferred from naming.

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 tool versus alternatives such as zemax_set_surface, zemax_set_surface_parameter, or zemax_set_surface_type. No prerequisites (e.g., an open lens file or valid surface number) are mentioned, so the agent must guess the context.

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