arcgis_pro_raster_set_nodataAssign NoData values to specific bands of a raster, requiring confirmation of the raster path to ensure controlled application.
按波段设置 NoData；仅作用于精确回显的受控栅格。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data_type | No | ||
| in_raster | Yes | ||
| environment | No | ||
| nodata_values | Yes | ||
| confirm_raster_path | 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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the constraint that it only acts on a 'controlled raster with exact echo', which suggests a path-confirmation requirement beyond annotations, but it is vague and does not clarify failure behavior or side effects.
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 and front-loads the purpose efficiently. However, the second clause is cryptic and does not earn its place as clearly as it should; the overall text is under-specified rather than genuinely concise for a 5-parameter mutation tool.
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?
Given a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required confirmation path, environment options, or how nodata values map to bands. An output schema exists, so return values need not be covered.
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 five undocumented parameters. It only vaguely implies per-band semantics for 'nodata_values' and an echo requirement for 'confirm_raster_path', leaving 'in_raster', 'data_type', and 'environment' entirely unexplained.
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 clear verb+resource: '按波段设置 NoData' (set NoData by band). It identifies the operation distinctly but does not differentiate from the sibling 'arcgis_pro_raster_set_null', which could be confused with it. No misleading content.
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 description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives to consider. The phrase '仅作用于精确回显的受控栅格' hints at a prerequisite condition but does not explain when this tool should be chosen over others, leaving the agent without routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.