arcgis_pro_release_temporary_viewRelease a temporary feature layer or table view reference created by the current process without deleting the underlying source data.
释放一个由本进程创建的临时 feature layer/table view 引用，不删除其源数据。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | 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 cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the ownership constraint ('created by this process') and explicitly stating that source data survives the release — the key behavioral fact an agent needs to avoid fearing data loss.
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 sentence that front-loads the action, scopes it to this process, and ends with the critical non-destructive caveat. No filler or repetition.
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, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The main remaining gap is the opaque 'reference' parameter and the absence of any pointer to how valid references are discovered; otherwise the definition is complete for a simple cleanup tool.
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% for the single required parameter 'reference', which is just a bare string with no title or description. The description mentions a 'reference' but never explains what form it takes (handle name, ID, path) or how to obtain it (presumably from list_temporary_views), so the agent must guess the argument format.
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 + resource: releasing a temporary feature layer/table view reference created by the current process, and clarifies that source data is not deleted. That distinguishes it from generic removal tools like arcgis_pro_remove_layer/arcgis_pro_remove_table. It stops short of naming sibling tools such as arcgis_pro_list_temporary_views, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
Usage is implied by the constraint 'created by this process', which tells the agent it cannot release arbitrary views, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., list_temporary_views to find valid references first). The condition for calling it is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.