Edit Geometry Apply

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, so safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavior: atomicity and rollback when content or target changes (optimistic concurrency). That is meaningful context beyond annotations and does not conflict with idempotentHint. It omits which specific condition triggers the failure and whether it errors before or after partial writes.

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 front-loaded clause with zero filler: the primary action, its atomic guarantee, and the failure condition are all in one sentence. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a 5-required-param, 0%-coverage, atomic-edit tool, one sentence is thin: the token→preflight relationship, expected_count's role, and the failure/error surface are left to inference.

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 5 required params, so the description carries the full burden. It frames the semantic model ('precise OID geometry updates', tokens from a preflight, 'content or target change' implying expected_count is a verification guard), which is real value, but it never maps meaning to dataset_path, geometry_token, edit_token, or expected_count individually. Partial compensation only.

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 + resource + qualifier: atomically applies preflight-verified, exact-OID geometry updates. An agent can distinguish this from arcgis_pro_edit_geometry_preflight (which it references obliquely via '已预检') and from arcgis_pro_edit_apply. It stops short of naming the sibling it pairs with, so sibling differentiation is implied 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?

The mention of 'preflight' ('已预检') implies this must follow a geometry preflight and consume its tokens, and the fail-on-change clause implies when the call is valid. However, no alternative tool is named, no prerequisites for dataset_path/edit_token are stated, and no when-not guidance is given; the agent must infer the two-step flow from the sibling naming convention.

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