Define a connector displacement boundary condition by prescribing U1, U2, U3 values for a selected region to enforce motion in an Abaqus model.
Create a connector displacement BC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| u1 | No | ||
| u2 | No | ||
| u3 | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create', offering no information about side effects, requirements, units, how the BC is applied to the region, or what the operation does beyond the literal verb.
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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides only a minimal phrase and no structured information to help an agent understand the tool.
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?
Given a create tool with eight parameters, two required fields, no annotations, and an output schema that is not elaborated, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, defaults, parameter relationships, or expected behavior.
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 mentions none of the eight parameters. It does not explain the meaning of `u1`, `u2`, `u3`, `region_name`, or the model/step defaults, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.
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 and resource: 'Create a connector displacement BC.' This is clear about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from the very similar sibling `create_displacement_bc`, so it falls short of full clarity.
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 instead of alternatives like `create_displacement_bc` or `create_connector_force`. The context and selection criteria are entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.