Sdk Delete Selected Features

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 partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: native Undo is preserved, a destructive gate is enforced, four CAS precondition groups are required, and double confirmation is needed. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 action front-loaded and prerequisites trailing; nothing is padded. The Chinese-language description against English sibling titles is a minor consistency wart but does not affect length.

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 destructive, 10-parameter tool the description covers the safety mechanics reasonably, and the output schema removes any need to explain return values. It still leaves the required CAS parameters and their expected-value semantics unexplained at 0% schema coverage.

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 10 parameters (8 required), so the description must compensate. It hints at the shape of the CAS parameters ('four groups') and the confirmation parameters ('double confirmation'), implicitly mapping to the generation/URI/count/digest fields and the two boolean confirm flags, but it explains no individual parameter.

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+resource: delete the exact selection set, while preserving native Undo. That is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like gp_delete_features or da_delete_where. However it never names the closest siblings (arcgis_pro_da_delete_selected, arcgis_pro_delete_layer_selection), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 lists prerequisites (destructive gate, four CAS groups, double confirmation) but gives no when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance. With several sibling delete tools present, the agent gets no routing help for choosing this one.

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