Define acceleration boundary conditions on specified regions for Abaqus simulation steps, setting acceleration components a1, a2, a3.
Create an acceleration boundary condition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a1 | No | ||
| a2 | No | ||
| a3 | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| step_name | No | Initial | |
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| region_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the create action but does not disclose side effects, whether existing boundary conditions are replaced, validation requirements, or what happens on failure.
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 description is a single, parseable sentence with no filler words. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise; the brevity omits necessary context that a tool description should provide.
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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is not sufficient to guide correct use. It does not explain required inputs, defaults, component semantics, or the result of the operation, even though an output schema exists.
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 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning. The meaning of a1, a2, a3, timeout, step_name, model_name, and region_name is left entirely to schema field names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('acceleration boundary condition'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling BC-creation tools like create_displacement_bc or create_velocity_bc. It is minimal, but it is not vague or tautological.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling boundary-condition tools, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the appropriate context solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.