Analysis Asset Info

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

'Register a physical file version and GIS role' describes a write/registration action, yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. This is a direct tension between the description's mutation framing and the read-only annotations, and the description adds nothing about permissions, persistence, or side effects to resolve it.

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 and front-loaded into a single line, so it wastes few words, but the terseness comes at the cost of cryptic, unexplained terminology rather than genuine economy. Appropriate length, weak information density.

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 described, but with 0% parameter coverage, a mutation/read-only contradiction, and no usage context, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool confidently. It should clarify identity_basis and the relationship between registration and the read-only annotation.

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% across all four parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It gestures at 'role' and 'file version' but never explains dataset_path, identity_basis, or vector_layer, leaving three required parameters effectively undocumented.

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 verb ('Register') and resources ('physical file version and GIS role'), which is more than a tautology, but the phrasing is dense jargon and it conflicts with the name/title ('Analysis Asset Info'), which suggests a query rather than a registration. It also does not distinguish this tool from analysis-adjacent siblings like arcgis_pro_analysis_result_status or arcgis_pro_validate_analysis_environment.

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?

'File mode; no GUI selection' gives a sliver of operating context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling analysis tools. The agent is left to infer the scenario in which registration is required.

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