Edit Geometry Preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool issues a token bound to geometry content and OID digest, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain token lifetime, persistence, or other operational constraints.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, placing the core action and scope first. It is highly concise and structurally clean.

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 four-parameter preflight tool with no input schema descriptions, the description is sparse. It conveys the purpose and token concept, but omits parameter semantics and workflow context, leaving the agent with significant gaps despite the output schema and annotations being present.

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 must compensate for four undocumented required parameters. It mentions geometry formats, exact OID, and token digest, but does not clarify what dataset_path, rows, expected_count, or geometry_token actually mean or how they relate to the preflight operation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: preflighting SHAPE@WKT/SHAPE@JSON geometry updates by exact OID, and issuing a token bound to geometry content and OID digest. It clearly separates itself from a pure apply tool by using '预检' and token issuance, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.

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 term '预检' implies that this tool is used before applying geometry edits, but the description does not state when to use it versus alternatives such as arcgis_pro_edit_geometry_apply or arcgis_pro_edit_preflight. Usage is therefore implied rather than explicitly guided.

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