Insert Layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful constraint that insertion happens within the same map and is anchored to a reference layer, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or what happens on invalid layer names.

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 wasted words; the core action, scope, anchor, and positional options are all stated immediately.

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?

Although an output schema and annotations exist, the 0% schema description coverage leaves critical invocation details unstated: aprx_path format, map_name behavior, required parameter expectations, and default for insert_position. For a mutation tool with five parameters, the description is too thin to fully guide correct 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%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It adds meaning for insert_position (BEFORE/AFTER) and implies reference_layer_name and insert_layer_name, but it does not explain aprx_path, map_name semantics, required-ness, or the default value clearly enough to cover the schema gap.

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 (insert layer), the resource (layer), and the distinguishing anchor semantics: inserting within the same map relative to a reference layer at BEFORE/AFTER. This differentiates it from generic add/move layer siblings such as arcgis_pro_add_layer_from_path or arcgis_pro_move_layer.

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 context of use is implied: insert another layer at a precise position anchored to a reference layer within the same map. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives like add_layer_from_path, copy_layer, move_layer, or add_layer_to_group, and it lists no exclusions.

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