Create a tie constraint between master and slave surfaces to couple their motion in Abaqus simulations.
Create a tie constraint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| slave_surface | Yes | ||
| master_surface | 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says a tie constraint is created, and does not mention side effects, required existing surfaces, or behavior on invalid input.
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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. One sentence that adds almost nothing beyond the tool name does not earn its place as a helpful definition.
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 5 parameters, 3 required fields, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too sparse for an agent to call the tool correctly. It omits the meaning of a tie constraint and the relationship between master and slave surfaces.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain master_surface, slave_surface, and name, but it does not. It implies a tie between surfaces only through the tool name, not through any parameter-level guidance.
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 resource ('tie constraint'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling constraint tools like create_rigid_body_constraint, create_coupling_constraint, and create_mpc_constraint. However, it does not explain what a tie constraint does, so it stops short of being fully informative.
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 use this tool versus the many sibling constraint or contact tools. It does not state prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.