Apply a distributed force per unit length along a shell edge by specifying the region, magnitude, direction, and analysis step for the Abaqus model.
Create a shell edge load (force per unit length).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| direction | Yes | ||
| magnitude | Yes | ||
| step_name | Yes | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| region_name | 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly implies a mutating create operation, but does not explain side effects, preconditions, validation behavior, or failure modes. The 'force per unit length' detail is helpful but minimal.
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 redundancy or filler. However, it is arguably too terse for a seven-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, so it does not quite reach the top score.
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 complexity, high parameter count, and lack of annotations or schema descriptions, this one-line definition is insufficient. It omits preconditions, what region_name and step_name must reference, how direction is expressed, and how this tool differs from similar sibling tools. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but major operational gaps remain.
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 for undocumented parameters. It gives some context for magnitude via 'force per unit length' and hints that region_name is a shell edge, but none of the seven parameters are meaningfully explained beyond their names.
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 the action and resource: create a shell edge load, and adds the physical meaning 'force per unit length.' It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related siblings such as create_line_load or create_pressure_load.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other load-creation tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an existing shell edge region or analysis step. Usage is only implied by the tool name and minimal description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.