create_surface_to_surface_contact

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' and does not mention side effects, required pre-existing entities (surfaces, interaction property), which step the interaction is added to, or any modeling consequences. For a mutation-style creation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative; it reads almost like a restatement of the tool name and omits behavioral or usage details that would make the sentence more valuable.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is not complete enough for a creation tool with 7 parameters and 0% schema coverage. It lacks context about required preconditions, the Abaqus/Standard versus Explicit distinction, and how the interaction is incorporated into the model. An agent would need to inspect sibling tools and parameter names to use this correctly.

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 beyond the parameter names already present in the schema. It does not explain the relationship between master_surface, slave_surface, and interaction_property, nor the role of step_name, model_name, or timeout. With such low coverage, the description was required to compensate and did not.

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 type ('surface-to-surface contact interaction'), so an agent can tell this apart from tie constraints and general contact. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its near-twin sibling create_surface_to_surface_contact_exp, so it misses the last step of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_surface_to_surface_contact_exp, create_general_contact, or create_tie. The description does not mention preferred contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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