Raster Calculate Statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's '在原位' wording usefully confirms that the source raster is modified rather than a new dataset produced, but it says nothing about which side files or statistics are written, required permissions, or overwrite behavior tied to skip_existing.

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; the operative concept (in-place statistics) leads and the constraint list follows. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to stand alone given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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. But with seven parameters at 0% schema coverage and a mutating tool, the description leaves key gaps: what in_raster_dataset must be, what skip_existing controls, and what the write actually affects. Enough to call the tool, not enough to call it confidently.

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 carries the burden. It does name skip factor, ignore values, AOI, and the local environment, mapping to five of the seven parameters, but adds no format, unit, or default meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, and omits in_raster_dataset and skip_existing entirely.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('在原位计算栅格统计') and adds an in-place scope qualifier that an agent can act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling statistics tools such as arcgis_pro_raster_cell_statistics or arcgis_pro_raster_focal_statistics, which share the same verb+noun shape.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The only contextual cue is '在原位' (in place), which hints at operating on the source dataset but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over other statistics tools.

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