zemax_set_title_notesSets or clears the Zemax OpticStudio optical system's title, notes, and author, keeping project metadata current for reports and documentation.
Update the current optical system's title, notes, and author.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | Optical-system notes; an empty string clears them | |
| title | No | Optical-system title; an empty string clears it | |
| author | No | Optical-system author; an empty string clears it |
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, and it adds nothing beyond the word 'Update'. It does not say whether changes persist to disk, whether they affect the open session only, what happens to fields left out, or any permission requirements. The empty-string-clears behavior lives only in the schema, not the description.
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 naming the verb and the exact fields, with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why behavioral and usage context is missing.
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 low-risk three-optional-string tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the read counterpart (zemax_get_title_notes) and the fact that fields are independently optional, which an agent would want in order to use it correctly.
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% and each parameter already documents its clearing semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only echoes the three field names without adding format, length, or interaction details 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?
States a specific verb (Update) and resource (current optical system's title, notes, and author), so an agent immediately knows what it changes. It does not distinguish itself from the obvious sibling zemax_get_title_notes, which reads the same fields, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to call this versus zemax_get_title_notes or any other setter, and no note that these fields are optional and can be updated independently. Usage must be inferred 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.