Remove Rasters From Mosaic Dataset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the invocation requires a destructive gate with echoed target/condition and an expected count, which is not derivable from the annotations.

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 compact sentence with no filler, leading with the operation and its filter. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though it could carry more without becoming bloated.

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, but with 11 parameters at 0% schema coverage and a description that only accounts for roughly half of them conceptually, an agent lacks the meaning of most flags for this destructive 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 11 parameters. The description only touches the where-clause, the target echo, and the expected count, leaving the five boolean flags (update_boundary, delete_item_cache, mark_overview_items, delete_overview_images, update_cellsize_ranges) and environment completely 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 names a specific verb (delete/remove) and resource (mosaic items) scoped by an exact where-match, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling arcgis_pro_add_rasters_to_mosaic_dataset without opening either schema. It is clear but does not explicitly name that sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It implies a mandatory confirmation workflow (destructive gate, target/condition echo, expected count) which guides how to call it, but it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use conditions beyond the confirmation requirement.

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