Define body heat flux by specifying magnitude, step, and model to simulate volumetric heat generation in Abaqus.
Create a body heat flux (heat generation per unit volume).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| 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 provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only that the tool 'creates' an object, giving no detail about prerequisites, effects on the model, failure modes, or whether invocation overwrites existing loads. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the clarifying parenthetical earns its place. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful parameter and invocation details.
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 five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. It does not explain which step or model the heat flux applies to, what timeout does, or how this creation relates to other loads. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input context.
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 does not document any of the five parameters. The parenthetical 'heat generation per unit volume' indirectly clarifies the meaning of magnitude, but name, timeout, step_name, and model_name remain unexplained.
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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Create a body heat flux,' and clarifies the physical meaning as 'heat generation per unit volume.' This helps distinguish it from surface-level heat flux loads such as create_heat_flux_load, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.
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 versus alternatives like create_heat_flux_load, create_body_force, or the many other load/material creation siblings. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.