Define a heat transfer analysis step by setting time period, increment limits, and timeout for thermal simulation setup in Abaqus.
Create a Heat Transfer step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| max_inc | No | ||
| min_inc | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| description | No | ||
| initial_inc | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the creation action and provides no information about side effects, model modifications, coupling with other steps, or required context.
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, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence essentially restates the tool name and provides no additional information, so it does not earn its place.
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 high parameter count (9), the presence of many similar step-creation siblings, and the total absence of annotation or schema descriptions, this one-line description is completely inadequate for correct tool selection and 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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the 9 parameters or their roles, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of fields like max_inc, min_inc, and time_period.
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 ('Create') and resource ('a Heat Transfer step'), making the basic action clear. However, it does not differentiate this step from siblings like create_coupled_temp_disp_step or create_static_step, so it stops short of full clarity.
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 other step-creation tools available in the sibling list. There is no mention of intended scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.