Rename Map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added claim—'returns verifiable structured results' and 'write/path restrictions depend on service capabilities'—is generic and does not disclose concrete behavior such as error conditions or path validation.

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 core statement is front-loaded and brief. The second sentence is boilerplate that could apply to nearly any write tool in this server, so it does not fully earn its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with three undocumented required parameters and no descriptive schema, the description should explain what gets renamed, valid name constraints, and failure modes. It leaves these gaps entirely, relying on annotations that only cover the safety profile.

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% and the description mentions none of the three required parameters (aprx_path, map_name, new_map_name). It adds no meaning about what these inputs should contain or how map_name must match an existing map.

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 ('重命名地图' = rename map), which distinguishes it from sibling renames like arcgis_pro_rename_layer or arcgis_pro_rename_layout. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or clarify scope (e.g., within a single .aprx).

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The trailing clause about write/path restrictions being 'subject to service capabilities' is vague boilerplate rather than actionable routing information.

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