Creates a 3D planar shell part in an Abaqus model by specifying its name, width, and height, providing the base geometry for simulations.
Create a 3D shell (planar) part.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a part is created and that it is a 3D planar shell; it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, default model behavior, units, or how the operation affects the current model.
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 or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded. However, it is somewhat under-specified for the given parameter set, so it earns a high but not perfect score for conciseness.
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 five parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, this description is too sparse to fully support correct use. While an output schema exists, parameter meaning, units, and usage context are missing, leaving important gaps for an agent to resolve independently.
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 does not explain any parameter semantics. Width and height are only implied as planar dimensions by the word 'planar', and name, timeout, and model_name are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without the meaning needed for correct invocation.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('3D shell (planar) part'), which distinguishes this tool from sibling part-creation tools like create_part_cube, create_part_cylinder, and create_part_sphere. The 'planar' qualifier makes the intended geometry unambiguous.
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 implies usage for creating planar shell parts but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. With many sibling part-creation tools, explicit differentiation such as 'use for flat rectangular plates' would be more helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.