arcgis_pro_raster_set_nullSets raster cells to null where a conditional raster is true, using a false raster or constant and an optional SQL where clause to control output.
以受控条件栅格、false 值和可选 SQL 条件执行 SetNull。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| out_raster | Yes | ||
| environment | No | ||
| where_clause | No | ||
| in_conditional_raster | Yes | ||
| in_false_raster_or_constant | 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as output creation, overwrite behavior, or environment 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to missing content rather than being a structural flaw itself.
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 raster geoprocessing tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. Output schema presence means returns need not be explained, but parameter meaning, usage context, and behavioral expectations remain largely missing.
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, but it only vaguely references three of the five parameters and omits out_raster and environment. It gives no type, format, or role details beyond the parameter title equivalents.
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 the operation and its key inputs, but '执行 SetNull' largely restates the tool name and does not explain what SetNull does, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings such as arcgis_pro_raster_con or arcgis_pro_raster_set_nodata.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The optional SQL condition is mentioned but not framed as usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer when this tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.