Edit Apply

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description genuinely adds beyond that: atomic execution within one Editor session, rollback on failure, and no cursor retention across MCP requests. These transaction-semantics details are not derivable from the annotations.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action (atomic apply) and followed by failure/rollback and cursor-scope qualifiers. Every clause earns its place, though the sentence is packed tightly for readers unfamiliar with arcpy.da.Editor.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and transaction behavior is well covered. The remaining gap is that a destructive, 3-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage leaves parameters unexplained, making the definition only adequately complete.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never explains the three required parameters (dataset_path, operations, edit_token). '已预检' and '不跨 MCP 请求保留游标' hint at the token's session scope, but the operations structure and dataset_path meaning remain 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?

States a specific verb (原子执行/apply) and resource (已预检的编辑 edits) within the concrete context of a single arcpy.da.Editor session. An agent can grasp that this commits pre-validated edits. It stops short of naming how it differs from the apply siblings (edit_geometry_apply, edit_workspace_apply), so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

'已预检的编辑' implies that a preflight step (arcgis_pro_edit_preflight) must run first, which is useful implied guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing between this and the geometry/workspace apply variants, so guidance is only inferred.

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