Apply a velocity boundary condition to a specified region by setting velocity components v1, v2, and v3 for a chosen step. Assign this constraint to control motion in Abaqus simulations.
Create a velocity boundary condition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| v1 | No | ||
| v2 | No | ||
| v3 | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create' with no mention of required inputs, model/step assumptions, side effects on existing conditions, or what happens to unspecified velocity components.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful content; still, from a conciseness standpoint it is appropriately brief.
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 8 parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling family of BC creators, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the role of velocity components, the need for a valid region, or defaults like step_name and model_name, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
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 meaning at all. It does not clarify what v1, v2, v3 represent, what region_name refers to, how step_name/model_name interact, or what timeout means.
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 verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('velocity boundary condition'). This distinguishes it from sibling BC tools like create_displacement_bc and create_acceleration_bc, though it does not explain what a velocity BC does in the simulation context.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_displacement_bc or create_acceleration_bc. The description simply states the action with no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.