Set up an Explicit Dynamics analysis step for Abaqus simulations, specifying time period, nonlinear geometry, and prior step to model transient responses.
Create an Explicit Dynamics step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| nlgeom | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| description | No | ||
| time_period | No | ||
| previous_step | No | Initial |
| 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. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description does not mention side effects, prerequisites, model context, or what happens to the step sequence. It adds no behavioral detail beyond the verb 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 description is short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single generic sentence is not enough for a tool with 7 parameters and no supporting annotations.
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 parameter count, lack of annotations, and the large sibling cluster of step-creation tools, this description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain the required name parameter, how the step integrates with the model, when to use it, or what output to expect.
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 7 parameters. It does not compensate for the schema's bare titles and defaults, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance on fields like nlgeom, time_period, or previous_step.
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 ('Create') and identifies the resource as an 'Explicit Dynamics step,' which is clear and differentiates it from other step-creation siblings by analysis type. However, it does not explain what an Explicit Dynamics step does or why it differs from dynamic implicit, static, or modal steps.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like create_dynamic_implicit_step or create_static_step. Any usage context must be inferred solely from the tool name and sibling list, which is not sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.