arcgis_pro_delete_bookmarkDelete a specified bookmark from an ArcGIS Pro map by providing the project path, map name, and bookmark name. Requires confirm=true to proceed with this destructive action.
删除指定地图书签；需要独立破坏性门禁和 confirm=true。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| map_name | Yes | ||
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| bookmark_name | Yes |
| 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 already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds value beyond them by stating that invocation requires an independent destructive gate and confirm=true — a concrete call requirement not expressed in the annotations or schema (confirm defaults to false and is not even required).
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and then the invocation constraint. Nothing is redundant.
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. However, with 0% parameter coverage and three required undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete for an agent trying to construct a correct call, even though the destructive-gate aspect is covered.
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 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden but only clarifies confirm (must be true). The three required parameters aprx_path, map_name, and bookmark_name receive no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description.
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 specific verb and resource (删除地图书签 / delete map bookmark), which clearly separates it from siblings such as create_bookmark, update_bookmark, list_bookmarks, and mapframe_zoom_to_bookmark. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.
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 states a pre-condition for invocation (destructive gate + confirm=true), which is genuine usage guidance, but offers no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use reasoning relative to siblings (e.g., listing bookmarks first to obtain valid names).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.