Set Surface Solve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a mutation, whether existing solves are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or any side effects or return behavior. For a 17-parameter write operation, this is a severe transparency 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?

The single sentence is short, but it is not 'appropriately sized' for a tool with 17 parameters and a complex solve-type concept. The description is under-specified rather than concise, omitting information that would be needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Given 17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a nontrivial domain concept (solve types), the description is wholly inadequate. It provides none of the contextual detail an agent needs to understand the tool's behavior, constraints, or effects.

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. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 for a fully covered 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 verb ('Set') and resource ('solve type for a surface property'), so the action is identifiable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely named siblings like zemax_set_surface_type, zemax_set_surface_parameter, or zemax_set_surface, leaving ambiguity about its distinct role.

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, when not to, or which alternative (e.g., set_surface_type vs set_surface_parameter) to choose. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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