Fix a region completely by applying an encastre (fully fixed) boundary condition to block all translational and rotational movement in an Abaqus model.
Create an encastre (fully fixed) BC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only restates the tool's name in slightly expanded form ('fully fixed') and does not disclose what DOFs are constrained, what region type is expected, or any side effects beyond creation. The verb 'Create' implies mutation but adds no real transparency.
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 one short sentence with no filler, and the core concept is front-loaded. It is efficient, though minimal. This is appropriate conciseness, but it sacrifices substance covered by other dimensions.
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 5-parameter BC creation tool with many related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter clarification, and behavioral detail. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but does not compensate for the missing selection and invocation guidance.
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 adds no parameter-level meaning. Required parameters like name and region_name, and optional ones like step_name, model_name, and timeout, are left entirely to their bare schema names. The description does nothing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 and resource: 'Create an encastre (fully fixed) BC.' The parenthetical clarifies what encastre means mechanically. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling BC tools like create_displacement_bc or create_pinned_bc.
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 sibling BC creation tools. It does not mention prerequisites, selection criteria, or situations where encastre is the appropriate boundary condition. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.