fem_bucklingConfigure linear buckling analysis by applying a unit-magnitude force constraint at the load location. Obtain buckling load factors that indicate the multipliers at which buckling occurs.
Configure analysis for linear buckling. Apply a unit-magnitude force constraint at the load location; the result factors are the multipliers at which buckling occurs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| analysis | Yes | ||
| n_factors | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it applies a unit-magnitude force constraint and that the result factors are multipliers for buckling, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that this modifies the analysis or model (destructive hint is true), nor does it mention any side effects or reversibility. The annotation already flags destructiveness, so the description adds some but not full transparency.
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 two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the purpose. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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 complement tool with two parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain typical usage sequence (e.g., after setting material and constraints), what the analysis parameter expects, or how to interpret the result. The sibling list suggests many FEM tools, but the description does not place this in the workflow.
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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention 'analysis' or 'n_factors' at all. The only hint is that the result factors are multipliers, which relates to n_factors but not explicitly. An agent cannot determine what string to pass for 'analysis' or the meaning of 'n_factors' from this description.
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 'configure' and resource 'analysis' for linear buckling, which distinguishes it from modal analysis and other FEM tools. It clearly indicates the focus on buckling, though it could be more explicit about the difference from fem_new_analysis or fem_run.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like fem_modal or fem_run. It does not mention prerequisites such as having an existing analysis setup, or that buckling analysis requires a mesh and solver configuration. There are no alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.