zemax_set_surface_parameterSet a type-specific parameter on a given Zemax OpticStudio surface using its surface number, one-based parameter index, and numeric value.
Set a type-specific surface parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Parameter value | |
| parameter | Yes | One-based parameter number | |
| surfaceNumber | Yes | Surface number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 a mutation but says nothing about persistence, error conditions, whether the surface type must already support the given parameter, or what happens on an out-of-range parameter index. Only the word 'type-specific' hints at any behavior.
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 clause with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. There is no padding to remove, but also no useful structure to reward above the minimum.
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 mutation tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, valid parameter ranges per surface type, and failure behavior, none of which are recoverable from the structured fields alone.
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 three parameters are self-documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's 'type-specific' wording adds a modest semantic layer, signaling that valid parameter numbers depend on the surface type, which the schema's bare 'One-based parameter number' does not convey.
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 (Set) and resource (surface parameter), plus the qualifier 'type-specific'. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely named siblings like zemax_set_surface, zemax_set_surface_solve, zemax_set_surface_type, or zemax_lde_set_surface, leaving the agent to guess which one applies. Purpose is understandable but not distinctive.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many adjacent set_surface* siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. surface must exist, must be the correct type). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.