Add ductile damage initiation to a material in Abaqus by defining fracture strain and optional stress triaxiality and strain rate.
Add ductile damage initiation to a material.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| strain_rate | No | ||
| material_name | Yes | ||
| fracture_strain | Yes | ||
| stress_triaxiality | No |
| 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 disclosing behavior. It only states that damage initiation is added, without mentioning whether it modifies an existing material, creates a subobject, overwrites prior damage settings, or requires a specific material state.
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 fluff, but it is overly terse for a tool with six parameters and no schema documentation. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of useful substance.
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 the tool's six parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is not complete enough for confident invocation. Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks essential parameter and side-effect 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 mentions no parameters at all. Without any parameter explanations in either the schema or the description, an agent has no guidance on what 'fracture_strain', 'stress_triaxiality', 'strain_rate', or the other inputs actually mean.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add ductile damage initiation to a material.' It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and is reasonably distinguishable from sibling material-creation tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with or name related alternatives.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which it should not be used. Any usage context is only implied by the tool's name and one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.