Gp Mosaic To New Raster

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

Annotations already disclose the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that results are 'verifiable structured' and that write/path restrictions depend on service capability, which is mildly useful context beyond the annotations, but it omits overwrite behavior, required permissions, and output location semantics.

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?

It is short and front-loads the operation, with no obvious padding. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise and 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?

For a five-parameter write tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the parameters, output destination behavior, and overwrite semantics unexplained. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the input-side gaps remain significant.

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 five parameters (pixel_type, input_rasters, number_of_bands, output_location, raster_dataset_name). The description mentions none of them and provides no formats, defaults, or meaning, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 operation ('mosaic栅格') matching the tool name, identifying verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling raster/mosaic tools like arcgis_pro_create_mosaic_dataset or arcgis_pro_add_rasters_to_mosaic_dataset, leaving the distinction to the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The clause about write/path restrictions being subject to service capability hints at constraints but gives no actionable guidance on selection or invocation context.

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