Create a general contact for explicit analysis in Abaqus by specifying a name and an interaction property.
Create a general contact for explicit analysis.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool creates a general contact. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, required model state, or failure behavior beyond the basic mutation implied by 'Create'.
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 filler or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured, though the brevity sacrifices useful context in 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?
The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and several closely related sibling tools, but the description only states the core action. It does not explain what interaction_property should contain, which analysis scenarios require this tool, or how it relates to other contact-creation siblings. The output schema helps, but the description alone is insufficient for reliable correct invocation.
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 meaning. While names like 'name' and 'timeout' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'interaction_property' is opaque and no guidance is provided about expected formats or relationships to other contact definitions.
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 clearly identifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('general contact'), and scopes it to explicit analysis via the '_exp' suffix. It is clear enough about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly spell out how it differs from the closely named sibling create_general_contact.
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 only usage context is 'for explicit analysis', which is vague and does not explain when to choose this tool over create_general_contact or create_surface_to_surface_contact_exp. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving selection among sibling tools to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.