Remove Relate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that a destructive gate and exact name confirmation are required ('破坏性门禁和精确名称确认'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what happens to the relate data after removal, whether it's reversible, or what the output looks like.

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?

Extremely concise – a single sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It earns its place by mentioning the confirmation requirement. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative given the parameter gaps.

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?

The tool is complex: 6 required parameters, zero schema coverage, a destructive mutation, and an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values). The description is too thin to guide an agent through the required inputs. It doesn't explain what item_kind means or whether item_identifier refers to a layer or table name, nor does it describe the confirmation flow in enough detail.

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% – none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions '命名 relate' (named relate) and '精确名称确认' (exact name confirmation), which vaguely maps to relate_name and confirm_relate_name, but does not explain any of the other 4 parameters (aprx_path, map_name, item_kind, item_identifier). With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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 clear verb+resource: removing a named relate from a single layer or table view. It is specific about scope ('唯一图层或表视图') but does not name the sibling tool arcgis_pro_add_relate, which would have pushed it to 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions '需要破坏性门禁和精确名称确认' but does not say under what circumstances a relate should be removed, nor reference the sibling arcgis_pro_add_relate or arcgis_pro_list_relates (none exists). The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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