Apply a connector force to a wire set within a simulation step by specifying X, Y, Z components and the target region.
Create a connector force on a connector/wire set.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' and the target resource, offering no information about whether existing connector forces are replaced, how the force is applied (global/local coordinates), or any prerequisites for the connector/wire set. This is minimal beyond the action itself.
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 sentence is short and free of clutter, which is concisely written. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured; there is no front-loading of key information beyond the basic action and target.
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 six parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot confidently determine what values to provide for 'force', which step context is required, or what a valid connector/wire set is. The output schema exists, but it does not make up for the missing behavioral and parameter semantics.
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 the six undocumented parameters. It does not mention name, region_name, force, step_name, timeout, or model_name, nor explain what the force array represents. The description adds no value to the bare schema field names.
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 resource ('connector force on a connector/wire set'), which distinguishes it from sibling load-creation tools like create_concentrated_force or create_body_force. It could be more explicit about what a connector force is, but the target resource is clear enough.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_concentrated_force or create_connector_displacement_bc. The phrase 'on a connector/wire set' implies context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.