Remove Table

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

Annotations disclose that this is destructive, idempotent, not read-only, and closed-world. The description adds only a vague sentence about 'verifiable structured results' and 'write and path constraints based on service capabilities,' which does not clarify what exactly is removed, whether deletion is permanent, or any prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a 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?

The description is very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the second sentence is somewhat generic and could be more informative.

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?

Given that this is a destructive operation with annotations marking it as such, the description is incomplete: it lacks critical details like whether the table is permanently deleted from the project or just from the map, whether confirmation is required, and any prerequisites or side effects. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but behavioral context is lacking.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description offers no parameter-level information (e.g., what aprx_path, map_name, table_name represent, or what confirm does). With the baseline of 4 for 0 params not applying, and the description failing to compensate for the schema gap, a 3 is appropriate.

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: 移除表 (remove table) in ArcGIS Pro. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like arcgis_pro_remove_layer or arcgis_pro_remove_map, though it does not elaborate on the scope of what 'table' means in this context.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcgis_pro_gp_delete_dataset, arcgis_pro_gp_delete_features, or arcgis_pro_remove_table_from_group. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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