Create a 3D deformable cube or box part in Abaqus by defining its name, width, height, and depth for simulation modeling.
Create a 3D deformable cube/box part.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| depth | Yes | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 |
| 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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the created part is deformable (a genuine trait beyond the schema), but says nothing about side effects, whether the part is added to the model specified by model_name, what happens on duplicate names, or any operational dependencies.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for what it communicates, though slightly terse given the missing supporting detail scored 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?
For a creation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too thin. The output schema partially relieves it from documenting return values, but usage context, prerequisites, parameter meaning, and behavioral effects are all absent, leaving the agent to guess.
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, but it explains no parameters. Width/height/depth get implicit meaning from 'cube/box' as the box's extents, yet units are unspecified and model_name/timeout semantics are entirely unexplained.
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') with a clear resource ('3D deformable cube/box part'). The shape qualifier 'cube/box' inherently distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_part_sphere, create_part_cylinder, create_part_beam, and create_part_plate, and 'deformable' adds a meaningful part-type qualifier.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description — an agent can infer to use this when a box-shaped part is needed — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites such as a live ABAQUS connection or an existing model.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.