Assign specific heat to an existing material in an Abaqus model, enabling thermal analysis.
Add specific heat to an existing material.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| material_name | Yes | ||
| specific_heat | 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Add', implying mutation, but does not disclose whether calling it again overwrites or duplicates, whether the material is modified in place, or what outputs/side effects to expect.
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 concise sentence with no filler. The core operation and key prerequisite are immediately clear, and the description earns its place without redundancy.
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 lack of annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke this safely. It omits units, behavior on repeat calls, and any parameter guidance beyond the central concept, despite having an output schema.
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 only names 'specific heat' and implies 'material'. It does not clarify units, valid ranges, the meaning of model_name, or why material_name is required, leaving the agent to guess.
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 ('Add') and the target resource ('specific heat to an existing material'). It distinguishes from material-creation siblings by emphasizing the material already exists, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 phrase 'existing material' conveys an important context: the material must already exist before calling. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over related thermal-property tools like create_thermal_expansion or create_thermal_conductivity, nor does it mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.