create_static_step

Does 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 says 'Create a Static, General step' and does not disclose that this mutates a model, appends a step, interacts with previous_step, or selects an analysis procedure. The operational behavior is left entirely to inference.

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 wasted words or filler. It is structurally clean; the issue is under-specification, which is penalized in other dimensions rather than this one.

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?

This is a mutating tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and numerous closely related sibling tools, yet the description gives only a one-line definition. It omits crucial context about how the step connects to previous_step, which model_name applies to, how it differs from other step types, and what the output schema represents.

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?

The schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description names none of them. Parameters like nlgeom, initial_inc, max_num_inc, max_inc, and previous_step receive no explanation, so the description adds zero semantic value beyond the bare parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('Static, General step'), and the capitalized Abaqus terminology distinguishes it from sibling step tools such as create_static_riks_step and create_explicit_step. It does not, however, mention where the step is placed (model, assembly) or what the returned object is, preventing a top score.

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 step versus alternatives like create_dynamic_implicit_step, create_heat_transfer_step, create_static_riks_step, or create_explicit_step. With dozens of sibling step-creating tools, the absence of any use-condition or exclusion makes selection the agent's problem.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.