arcgis_pro_clear_map_selectionClears the feature selection from a specified layer or all layers in an ArcGIS Pro map and verifies that no features remain selected.
清除指定图层或地图全部要素图层的选择，并确认实际选择集为空。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | all_layers | |
| map_name | Yes | ||
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| layer_name | No |
| 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 non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds that it confirms the actual selection set is empty, a behavioral detail beyond annotations. It doesn't detail exception handling, but for a simple idempotent operation this is adequate.
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?
Single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; purpose, scope, and confirmation are all included.
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?
Description is complete enough for a simple selection-clearing tool: purpose, scope, and confirmation are present, and annotations cover safety/idempotency. Return values are handled by the output schema, though usage guidance is absent.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, description compensates partially by distinguishing between clearing a specified layer vs all feature layers, which maps to layer_name and scope. It doesn't name parameters or clarify scope values/defaults, but core semantics are conveyed.
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?
States a specific verb (清除/clear) and resource (选择/selection) with scope: specified layer or all feature layers. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like delete_layer_selection, but the scope and confirmation behavior make it distinguishable.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.