Create a homogeneous solid section in Abaqus by providing a name and material name to assign section properties for simulation.
Create a homogeneous solid section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the creation action with a resource qualifier ('homogeneous') and gives no information about side effects, prerequisites, overwrite behavior, or what happens when the material does not exist.
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 fluff or repetition. It is maximally concise, though the terseness means it sacrifices substance; still, from a conciseness standpoint it is appropriately compact.
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 four parameters, no annotations, and many sibling creation tools, this description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether the section is assigned to a part, whether material_name must already exist, or when to choose this over create_beam_section/create_shell_section, leaving important context unaddressed.
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 adds no meaning for the four parameters (name, timeout, model_name, material_name). It does not explain that material_name must reference an existing material, how model_name is used, or what timeout controls, so the agent is left without parameter-level guidance.
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') and resource ('homogeneous solid section'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_beam_section and create_shell_section. The term 'solid' disambiguates the section type without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.
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 word 'solid' implies when this tool is appropriate versus beam or shell section tools, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions. There is no guidance about prerequisites like needing an existing material or model, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.