Add thermal conductivity to an existing material in an Abaqus model. Specify material name and conductivity value to define thermal properties for simulation.
Add thermal conductivity to an existing material.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| conductivity | Yes | ||
| material_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add', which is already implied by the name, and does not disclose whether existing conductivity values are overwritten, whether the material must exist, or what error behavior 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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though very minimal.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description leaves important context missing: material existence, units, overwrite behavior, and the purpose of optional parameters. With 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does not fully compensate.
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 parameter-level meaning beyond the schema property names. Conductivity and material_name are inferable, but timeout and model_name are unexplained, and units or valid ranges are not addressed.
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 clear action ('Add') and a specific resource ('thermal conductivity to an existing material'), which distinguishes it from material-creation siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar property-adding tools like create_thermal_expansion, though the property name makes the distinction reasonably clear.
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' implies the material should already be created, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.