Apply a body force (force per unit volume) across the entire model by specifying magnitude, direction, and analysis step.
Create a body force (force per unit volume) on the entire model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| direction | Yes | ||
| magnitude | Yes | ||
| step_name | Yes | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 |
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation effect and scope; it does not mention prerequisites, units, whether an existing body force is replaced or accumulated, step compatibility, or any side effects.
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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose and definition. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 tool with six parameters, four required, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It covers the general concept but omits parameter details, prerequisites, and behavioral context, even though an output schema is present.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning to magnitude and direction via 'force per unit volume,' but it does not explain step_name, model_name, name, or timeout semantics, leaving required parameters underspecified.
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 names a specific action ('Create'), a specific resource ('body force'), clarifies its physical meaning ('force per unit volume'), and scopes it to 'the entire model.' This distinguishes it from sibling load tools like create_concentrated_force, create_pressure_load, and create_gravity_load.
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 phrase 'on the entire model' implies when this tool is appropriate, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as create_gravity_load or other load types. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.