Rotate a part instance in an Abaqus model around any axis by specifying axis point, direction, and angle. Enables precise repositioning for assembly or simulation setup.
Rotate an instance around an axis by a given angle (degrees).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| angle | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| axis_point | Yes | ||
| model_name | No | Model-1 | |
| instance_name | Yes | ||
| axis_direction | 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 present, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that a rotation occurs but does not disclose whether the instance is modified in place, what coordinate system the axis uses, or what side effects this rotation may have on dependent geometry.
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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation and the key unit of measurement.
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?
As a transformation tool with six parameters and no annotations, it needs to explain prerequisites (e.g., the instance must exist), coordinate conventions for the axis, and persistence of the rotation. The current description covers none of these; the output schema may help with returns but not with invocation semantics.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that the angle is in degrees. It does not explain the meaning of axis_point, axis_direction, timeout, or model_name, which leaves critical invocation details unspecified.
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: 'Rotate an instance' around an axis by an angle in degrees. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like translate_instance and other model-construction operations.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as translate_instance or other transform operations. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the brief description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.