Create a homogeneous shell section for Abaqus models by assigning a material and thickness.
Create a homogeneous shell section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| thickness | Yes | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| material_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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the creation action and adds no detail about side effects, required context, or what happens to the model. It does not contradict any annotations, but it is far from transparent.
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 single sentence is brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It earns its place as a statement of intent but omits essential behavioral and parameter context.
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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no explanation of how the shell section integrates with the model or materials, this description is grossly incomplete. The output schema helps define the return value but cannot compensate for missing usage and parameter semantics.
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 mentions none of the five parameters. An agent cannot infer what 'name', 'thickness', 'material_name', 'model_name', or 'timeout' mean in relation to the shell section beyond their generic schema titles.
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 the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'shell section', and the qualifier 'homogeneous' adds a useful distinction. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_beam_section and create_solid_section, though it does not elaborate on what 'homogeneous' means in this context.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_beam_section or create_solid_section. The description gives a clear object type but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.