Sdk Modify Selected Features

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a native Undo edit and requires CAS tokens (selection generation/count/OID digest) for concurrency validation. It still does not describe what happens on CAS mismatch or what permissions are required.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is dense and jargon-heavy, but it delivers the core action and mechanism immediately, which is appropriate for a technical tool.

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 complex mutation tool with 11 parameters, 8 required, and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is far too sparse. While an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the definition omits parameter meanings, CAS mismatch behavior, confirmation semantics, and usage context, leaving the agent with major gaps.

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 11 parameters. The description only clarifies the role of selection generation, count, and OID digest as CAS inputs. It says nothing about layer_uri, expected_map_uri, sdk_session_ref, expected_edit_generation, expected_context_generation, geometry, attributes, or confirm, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific action (modify) on a precise resource (exact selection set) and goes further to state the mechanism (selection generation/count/OID digest CAS) and the operational nature (native Undo edit). It clearly separates itself from generic update tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of CAS and 'exact selection set' implies a concurrency-safe edit on the current selection, but it does not say when to prefer this over arcgis_pro_da_update_features, arcgis_pro_edit_apply, or arcgis_pro_sdk_delete_selected_features.

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