Generate and verify a MAT_001 elastic material for LS-PrePost: set material ID, density, Young's modulus, Poisson ratio, and units, then reimport-check with optional PyDYNA.
Create and reimport-check a MAT_001 fragment using optional PyDYNA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| units | Yes | ||
| density | Yes | ||
| material_id | Yes | ||
| poisson_ratio | Yes | ||
| young_modulus | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is a mutation tool, yet nothing is said about where the material is written, whether it overwrites an existing material_id, what 'reimport-check' actually verifies, or what happens when PyDYNA is unavailable. Only the bare 'create' verb and the optional-dependency hint are disclosed.
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?
A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded, no filler or redundancy. It is arguably over-compressed, but every word is doing work rather than padding.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented required parameters, the description is far too thin. It does not state the effect of the write, the units convention, or the meaning of the reimport-check, all of which an agent needs before invoking it.
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?
Five required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them (units convention, density/young_modulus/poisson_ratio expectations, material_id semantics). The description fails entirely to compensate for the schema gap, leaving an agent to guess units and value conventions.
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 names a specific verb (create) and resource (a MAT_001 elastic material fragment), which is more than a tautology. However, 'fragment' and 'reimport-check' are domain jargon that may not be self-explanatory, and it does not contrast itself with the sibling update_elastic_material, so the agent must infer that this is the creation path for new materials.
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 when-to-use guidance is given. The obvious alternative, update_elastic_material, is never mentioned, nor is the condition that should route an agent to create instead of update. The phrase 'optional PyDYNA' hints at a conditional execution path but does not state when to enable or skip it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.