Apply prescribed displacement components (U1, U2, U3) to a named region in an Abaqus model for a given step, defining the boundary condition needed for simulation.
Create a 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavior, but it only says 'Create a displacement BC.' It does not mention whether existing BCs are overwritten, how null u1/u2/u3 values are interpreted, or whether a model, step, and region are required context. This is effectively no behavioral disclosure.
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 front-loaded, but under-specification is not conciseness. It provides no structured information about parameters, defaults, or intended usage, so it earns minimal credit 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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no visible output schema detail, the description is far too thin. It omits the role of region_name and step_name, default behavior for null displacement components, and how this BC interacts with other BCs, making confident invocation impossible.
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 does not mention any parameter, including required ones like name and region_name or the displacement components u1/u2/u3. The agent cannot learn displacement direction semantics, null-value meaning, defaults, or step association from the description.
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 ('Create a displacement BC'), making the core action identifiable. It does not differentiate from the sibling create_connector_displacement_bc or clarify which displacement components are involved, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 on when to use this tool versus velocity, acceleration, temperature, or connector displacement BCs. The only usage signal is the tool name itself, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.