Build Mosaic Footprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond that — it reads back and verifies the target after updating — but says nothing about what footprint geometry is modified, permissions, or side effects on the mosaic dataset.

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 a single short sentence with the action front-loaded, so there is no waste. But brevity here stems from under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, and the 'fixed parameters' clause is noise for a 17-param tool.

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 complex 17-parameter raster/mosaic maintenance operation, the description is grossly incomplete: no guidance on the footprint-building parameters, no usage context, no alternatives. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but that does not offset the missing operational context.

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 17 parameters, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all — not even the required in_mosaic_dataset or the many tolerance/size/simplification knobs. With the schema silent and the description silent, an agent must guess every argument.

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 names a verb (update) and resource (mosaic dataset footprints), which is enough to distinguish it broadly from siblings like build_mosaic_overviews. However, the qualifier '以固定参数' (with fixed parameters) is confusing and even misleading for a tool exposing 17 configurable parameters, and no sibling (e.g. arcgis_pro_build_mosaic_overviews, arcgis_pro_add_rasters_to_mosaic_dataset) is named or contrasted.

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 run this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. dataset must exist and contain rasters), and no conditions or exclusions. The phrase '并读回核验目标' hints at a verify-after-write workflow but is not usage guidance.

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