arcgis_pro_gp_convex_hullCreates a convex hull polygon enclosing input features and writes it to an output feature class, with optional grouping for separate hulls.
ArcGIS Pro：convexgp convex hull。返回可验证的结构化结果；写入和路径限制以服务能力为准。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| in_features | Yes | ||
| group_option | No | ALL | |
| out_feature_class | 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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is known. The description's generic phrase 'writes and path restrictions follow service capability' is boilerplate that adds no specific behavior detail, and it doesn't explain that a new output feature class is created or how the output relates to inputs.
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 very short, which is good for conciseness, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance. It is not padded with waste, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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 values need not be explained. However, for a geoprocessing tool with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no meaningful usage guidance, the description is far too thin to allow correct invocation. It omits key details like geometry type of output, group_option semantics, and input geometry requirements.
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 three undocumented parameters (in_features, group_option, out_feature_class). It does not explain any parameter, not even the meaning of group_option (ALL vs. per-group hulls), which is the key semantic choice for this tool.
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 restates the tool name ('convexgp convex hull') rather than stating a distinct verb+resource purpose. It does not explain what a convex hull operation actually does to inputs (minimum bounding polygon enclosing all input features). With ~180 sibling tools including similar geoprocessing tools like arcgis_pro_gp_minimum_bounding_geometry, it fails to differentiate.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as arcgis_pro_gp_minimum_bounding_geometry or arcgis_pro_gp_aggregate_polygons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.