Apply a concentrated force vector to a vertex or reference point in a given step to define point loads for your Abaqus simulation.
Create a concentrated force on a vertex or reference point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| force | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| step_name | Yes | ||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a concentrated force' and does not mention prerequisites, units, coordinate conventions, whether existing forces are overwritten, or the need for a valid step and region.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too terse for a tool with six parameters and no schema descriptions, so it sacrifices substance for brevity.
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 6-parameter load-creation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. It omits critical context such as force component order, required existing geometry, step dependencies, and how this load relates to sibling load tools.
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. It adds minimal meaning by indicating that region_name should reference a vertex or reference point, but it does not explain the force array semantics, timeout, step_name, model_name, or name parameters.
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 action ('Create a concentrated force') and a specific target ('on a vertex or reference point'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling load-creation tools such as create_pressure_load, create_body_force, and create_moment_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 a vertex or reference point' implies this tool is for point loads, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_connector_force or create_moment_load. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.