arcgis_pro_add_folder_connectionAdd a folder connection to an ArcGIS Pro project, with optional alias and validation, and optionally set it as the home folder. Paths are constrained to the input root.
向工程目录追加一个受输入根约束的文件夹连接，可设为 home folder。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alias | No | ||
| validate | No | ||
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| make_home | No | ||
| folder_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds the important constraint that the folder must be under the input root and mentions the home-folder option, offering modest context beyond annotations but not elaborating on side effects or validation behavior.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and constraint. No wasted text, though the language mismatch with the English tool fields is a minor structural inconsistency.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the root constraint and home option but omits alias/validate behavior and return information, leaving it only partially complete.
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 provides only parameter names and defaults. The description references the root constraint and home-folder option but leaves alias, validate, and the exact semantics of folder_path/aprx_path undocumented. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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?
Names a specific verb (add) and resource (folder connection to the project), distinguishing it from the many sibling tools like remove_folder_connection. The description is in Chinese while the tool name/title are English, which slightly muddies clarity but the intent is discernible.
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 implies usage ('constrained to the input root', 'can be set as home folder') but gives no explicit when-to-use advice or alternatives (e.g., vs add_database_connection or remove_folder_connection). Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.