Sdk Edit Redo

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful precondition (valid lease, SDK edit switch), but does not explain reversibility of the redo itself, interaction with the undo stack, or what happens on failure.

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?

Single compact sentence that front-loads the action and condenses the important preconditions. No waste, though extremely terse relative to the parameter burden.

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?

With 3 required guard parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotation about the undo/redo stack semantics, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the generation/lease guard model, which an agent needs to safely invoke this tool.

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 description must compensate. It only clarifies confirm=true, but leaves sdk_session_ref, expected_map_uri, and expected_edit_generation (clearly concurrency/lease-guard parameters) entirely 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?

States a specific verb (Redo) and resource (活动地图原生 Redo / native redo on the active map), which distinguishes it from generic edit siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with arcgis_pro_sdk_edit_undo, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives preconditions ('SDK 编辑开关、有效租约和 confirm=true') which imply when the tool can be used, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance or exclusion criteria.

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