Remove Index

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an enterprise write gate, a destructive gate, and an index-name echo/confirmation step before deletion, which tells the agent this is a guarded, two-factor style destructive operation.

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 with the destructive action front-loaded and the gating requirements following, with no filler. It is efficient, though the semicolon-joined clause packs several distinct requirements together.

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 no explanation, and the annotations plus the description together cover the destructive/gated nature of the operation. What remains missing is any indication of the expected dataset_path form or whether the removal is reversible, which matters for a destructive index operation.

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% across all three parameters. '索引名回显' hints that confirm_index_name must echo index_name, giving partial semantics for one parameter, but dataset_path (a .sde connection path) and index_name are left entirely unexplained, so the description does little to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (删除) and resource (受控 .sde 数据集的一个精确索引), with the 'exact index' scoping constraint making it distinguishable from add_index/rebuild_indexes. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to route against, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 phrase '需要企业写门、破坏性门' communicates the preconditions under which the tool may run, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose removal over the sibling arcgis_pro_rebuild_indexes, nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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