Create a linear buckle step for buckling analysis in Abaqus. Specify name, modes, and model to set up the step.
Create a Linear Buckle step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| num_modes | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| description | No | ||
| previous_step | No | Initial |
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the tool creates a Linear Buckle step, implying mutation, but does not disclose whether the step is appended, what gets modified, how previous_step is used, or what side effects occur.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no filler, though it could have used the space to add sibling differentiation or usage context without becoming bloated.
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 creation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, a single sentence is inadequate. The output schema exists, but the description still leaves the agent without critical context about when to call this tool, how parameters relate to the step, and how it fits in the model-building workflow.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter details. With six parameters including num_modes, timeout, model_name, and previous_step, the agent receives no semantic explanation beyond the property names and defaults.
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 ('Create') and a specific resource ('a Linear Buckle step'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. The resource type also distinguishes it from the many other create_*_step siblings such as create_static_step and create_modal_step.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of sibling step-creation tools, the description does not explain when a Linear Buckle step is appropriate or what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.