Create an all-inclusive general contact interaction in Abaqus by specifying a name and interaction property, enabling automatic contact definition for the selected step and model.
Create a general contact (all-inclusive) interaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| step_name | No | Initial | |
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| interaction_property | 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool creates an interaction, with no disclosure of model effects, ordering requirements, compatibility constraints, or failure behavior. The phrase 'all-inclusive' adds a hint of scope but little actionable behavioral detail.
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 sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action. It is concise, though somewhat at the expense of necessary context.
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?
With five parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and many similar contact-creation siblings, the description is far from complete. Even though an output schema exists, the description gives no information about required inputs, interaction semantics, or selection logic.
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 meaning for any of the five parameters. In particular, the required interaction_property is completely unexplained, so an agent has no basis for constructing a valid call.
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?
Uses a specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource, 'a general contact (all-inclusive) interaction.' This is distinguishable from surface-to-surface contact tools, though it does not differentiate from the sibling create_general_contact_exp.
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 the many related contact creation tools. It does not mention prerequisites, supported contexts, or why a user would select this over create_surface_to_surface_contact or create_general_contact_exp.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.