Enable Editor Tracking

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the write-gate permission requirement, which annotations do not convey. It stops short of explaining side effects (e.g., whether existing field values are populated) or that it reviews/validates fields.

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 with no filler, which is efficient. But it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity, trading completeness for brevity.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a mutation tool with 5 required parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description omits parameter meaning, field-population behavior, and the distinction from disable_editor_tracking, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never explains dataset_path, creator_field, record_dates_in (UTC default), or add_fields. 'Review fields' is only a faint nod to the field parameters.

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 (enable), resource (editor tracking) and scope (controlled .sde datasets), plus a secondary action (review fields). An agent can distinguish this from arcgis_pro_disable_editor_tracking without opening a schema. However, it does not explicitly name siblings or scope boundaries.

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 names a prerequisite ('requires enterprise write gate'), which is real usage context. But it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never points to the counterpart arcgis_pro_disable_editor_tracking. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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