Add Global Ids

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

The annotations declare idempotentHint=false, but the description states '已有 GlobalID 时跳过' (skip when GlobalID already exists), which implies repeated calls with the same arguments would have no additional effect—i.e., idempotent behavior. This directly contradicts the annotation. Although the description also adds useful details like the 50-dataset limit and per-dataset verification, the rule mandates a score of 1 for annotation contradiction.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the action, scope, and key conditions. Every element—max 50, controlled .sde, verify each, skip existing—earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the critical operational boundaries: dataset type, count limit, verification, and idempotent-like skip behavior. The only notable omission is the expected format of dataset paths, and the annotation contradiction slightly undermines confidence.

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% for the single dataset_paths parameter. The description partially compensates by implying the input is a set of controlled .sde datasets and capping it at 50, but it does not explain path syntax or format. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but leaves a clear gap.

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-resource pair: add GlobalID to controlled .sde datasets, with a cap of 50 and skip-if-existing behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arcgis_pro_list_sde_datasets or arcgis_pro_describe, which inspect rather than mutate. An agent can identify the action 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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: use for controlled .sde datasets, up to 50 at a time, and skip datasets that already have a GlobalID. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool is named, but the operational boundaries are sufficient for routing.

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