Add Basemap

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description's only behavioral content is boilerplate ("returns verifiable structured results; write and path restrictions subject to service capabilities"), which does not say what gets modified, whether the aprx must be saved, or what path constraints actually apply. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

It is short, but the two sentences are generic boilerplate that could be pasted onto any tool in this server, so neither earns its place. The front-loaded content is a restatement of the name rather than useful scoping information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutating tool with three undocumented parameters and no sibling differentiation the description leaves the agent without the essentials. It does not cover prerequisites, the target map/aprx relationship, or valid basemap names.

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 schema documents none of the three required parameters, and the description adds nothing about map_name, aprx_path, or basemap_name — not even whether basemap_name must match an entry from arcgis_pro_list_basemaps. The description fails to compensate for the complete absence of parameter documentation.

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 essentially restates the tool name and title ("ArcGIS Pro: Add add basemap") with a redundant bilingual repetition, so it reads as a tautology. It never distinguishes this tool from siblings such as arcgis_pro_list_basemaps or arcgis_pro_add_layer_from_path, so an agent cannot tell which basemap-adjacent operation this is without opening the schema.

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 statement of when to use this tool, what prerequisites it needs (an open project, a target map), or when to prefer an alternative. The only vaguely directive phrase, "write and path restrictions subject to service capabilities," does not tell the agent anything actionable about invocation conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.