Create a Fem::FemAnalysis container to set up FEA simulations, returning a handle and name for further processing.
Create a Fem::FemAnalysis container. Returns {handle, name}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Analysis |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only says it creates a container and returns {handle, name}. It does not disclose mutation side effects, persistence, whether an active document is required, error behavior, or what the handle is used for. The return shape is useful but insufficient.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the creation action and followed by the return shape. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase earns its place.
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 simple one-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description does provide the return fields {handle, name}. However, it omits parameter semantics and any FEM workflow context, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent navigating a large sibling toolset.
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?
The schema has one parameter, name, with 0% description coverage and a default of 'Analysis'. The description never mentions the input name parameter or what it controls. Because schema coverage is extremely low, the description should compensate but adds no parameter meaning.
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: 'Create a Fem::FemAnalysis container.' This is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling FEM setup/solver/result tools. It does not, however, explain how it relates to downstream FEM workflow tools, so it falls short of a full 5.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is a first step before fem_set_material, fem_add_constraint, fem_mesh, etc. There is no explicit routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.