arcgis_pro_move_layerMove a layer to a chosen placement relative to a reference layer in an ArcGIS Pro map, using the project file path and map name.
ArcGIS Pro：移动图层。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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| map_name | Yes | ||
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| placement | Yes | ||
| layer_to_move_name | Yes | ||
| reference_layer_name | 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 a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description adds vague hints about structured verifiable results and service-dependent write/path restrictions, but does not specify permissions, side effects, or failure modes beyond that.
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 short but under-specified, not concise. The first sentence is tautological and the second is generic boilerplate that does not earn its place by adding actionable detail.
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 mutation tool with no parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. While annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, the agent is left without any guidance on how to correctly populate the required parameters.
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?
Five required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description offers zero parameter-level information. It does not explain what 'placement' means, how 'reference_layer_name' is used, or what 'aprx_path' should point to.
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 title and name: 'ArcGIS Pro：移动图层' adds nothing beyond 'Move Layer'. It gives no differentiation from siblings such as copy_layer, insert_layer, or remove_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_layer or insert_layer. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.