arcgis_pro_edit_preflightValidate update, insert, and delete operations on a dataset to lock affected OIDs and counts, then issue a five-minute edit token before applying changes.
预检同一数据集的一组 update/insert/delete 操作，锁定命中 OID 与数量并签发五分钟编辑令牌。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operations | Yes | ||
| dataset_path | 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly frames this as a non-mutating preflight. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it locks matching OIDs and counts and issues a five-minute edit token. It could mention token expiry handling or failure conditions, but the added context is substantive.
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 sentence that packs purpose, scope (same dataset, update/insert/delete), outputs (locked OIDs and counts), and token lifetime. It is dense but not bloated; every clause carries information.
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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers core behavior and outputs, but it omits critical operational details: the format of operations, what happens on OID conflicts, and how the token is used in subsequent calls. More detail is needed for reliable invocation.
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% and there are 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names 'operations' as update/insert/delete actions and implies dataset_path as the target dataset, but does not explain the exact structure of an operation object or required fields, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it preflights a set of update/insert/delete operations on a dataset, locks affected OIDs and counts, and issues a five-minute edit token. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like arcgis_pro_edit_apply and arcgis_pro_edit_geometry_preflight, though the term 'preflight' could be clarified further.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this preflight versus the apply step or other edit tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer the preflight-before-apply workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.