Set 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 implies mutation but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether omitted parameters leave values unchanged, or whether variable-state flags interact with optimization. For a 13-parameter mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a 13-parameter 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?

With 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should carry more weight. It omits mutation semantics, error behavior, and any indication of how the property and variable-state families relate, leaving the agent under-informed for a complex write operation.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'common properties and variable states' loosely groups the parameters but adds no format, unit, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb (Modify) and resource (sequential surface) plus the category of fields touched (common properties and variable states). However, 'common properties' is undefined and there is no differentiation from closely related siblings such as zemax_set_surface_parameter, zemax_set_surface_type, or zemax_set_variable, leaving the agent uncertain which tool applies.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the surface must already exist, whether sequential mode is required), and no exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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