arcgis_pro_remove_folder_connectionRemove a specific folder connection from an ArcGIS Pro project while refusing the home folder and requiring a destructive-action switch and path confirmation.
移除精确文件夹连接；拒绝当前 home folder，并要求破坏性开关和路径确认。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| folder_path | Yes | ||
| confirm_folder_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 flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds real value beyond that: it explicitly rejects home-folder removal and requires a destructive switch plus path confirmation, which are behavioral constraints the agent must honor. Not a 5 because the exact form of the 'destructive switch' is left unspecified.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the operation and its constraints. No filler, though the compact style borders on under-explanation.
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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a destructive 3-param operation with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the parameters (aprx_path, folder_path) and the 'destructive switch' mechanism under-specified.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains that confirm_folder_path is a path-confirmation safeguard, which maps meaning onto one of the three required params, but gives no semantics for aprx_path or folder_path beyond their names. Partial compensation warrants a mid score.
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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (folder connection) and even scopes it to 'exact' connections, which distinguishes it from the sibling add_folder_connection and remove_database_connection. Not a 5 only because the description is terse and doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
Implies use for removing an existing folder connection, and the constraint 'rejects the current home folder' acts as a partial when-not condition. However, no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. connection repair) or prerequisites beyond the home-folder exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.