Create a surface by specifying an instance and face indices, enabling named surface definition for Abaqus simulations.
Create a surface from faces of an instance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| face_indices | Yes | ||
| surface_name | Yes | ||
| instance_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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation, without addressing side effects, overwrite behavior, requirements for the instance, or what happens after creation. This is a minimal statement of intent, not a transparent behavioral contract.
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 filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and it ends with the key scoping detail about faces and instance.
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, three required, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, this description is underspecified. It does not clarify which model the instance belongs to, how face indices are interpreted, or what constraints apply. Despite the presence of an output schema, an agent would likely need to inspect sibling tools or infer too much to use this confidently.
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 should compensate by explaining parameter roles. It only hints at face_indices and instance_name via 'faces of an instance,' and says nothing about surface_name, model_name, or timeout. The semantic value added beyond the schema is minimal.
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 (create), the resource (surface), and the input source (faces of an instance). It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling create_surface_by_edges by specifying faces rather than edges as the source geometry.
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 'from faces of an instance' implies the tool should be used when a surface needs to be built from face geometry, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_surface_by_edges. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.