Apply a specified temperature to a region as a boundary condition in Abaqus/CAE, using the given magnitude and step.
Create a temperature boundary condition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| magnitude | Yes | ||
| step_name | No | Initial | |
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| region_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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action implied by 'create.' It does not explain that this adds a new boundary condition to a region, whether it overwrites existing temperature BCs, or any side effects on the model.
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 one-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, containing no filler. However, the terseness sacrifices necessary explanatory detail.
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 six parameters (three required), no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, this description is drastically under-specified. An agent cannot safely invoke the tool without guessing at parameter semantics, prerequisites, or expected model changes.
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 names none of the six parameters. 'Magnitude', 'region_name', 'step_name', and 'model_name' remain completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to determine valid values or which parameters are truly essential.
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 and resource: 'Create a temperature boundary condition.' This clearly distinguishes it from other boundary-condition tools (e.g., displacement, encastre) by naming the type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a temperature BC is appropriate vs. a heat-flux load), nor any prerequisites like requiring an existing region or model. The agent is left to infer all usage context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.