Add Relate

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds the important behavioral detail that the relate is temporary, but does not discuss persistence, session scope, permissions, or side effects beyond that.

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 description is two brief clauses with no filler and front-loads the core action. It is concise, though the terseness contributes to gaps in parameter and prerequisite 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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain any parameter meaning, required inputs such as aprx_path/map_name/item_kind, or how the relate_table_path and input_field should be chosen.

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?

There are 9 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description names none of them. Titles like 'Item Kind' and 'Input Field' do not explain accepted values, formats, or relationships between parameters, leaving the agent unable to confidently supply required inputs.

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 gives a precise verb-resource pair ('add temporary relate') and explicitly scopes it to a layer or table view. It also distinguishes the operation from the sibling tool arcgis_pro_create_relationship_class by stating that permanent relationships should use that tool instead.

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 says to use this tool for temporary relates and directs permanent relationships to CreateRelationshipClass, which is a clear when/when-not split. However, it does not cover other adjacent tools such as add_join/remove_join or state prerequisites like needing an open project.

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