Set Definition Query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description's 'writes and path restrictions are subject to service capability' is vague hedging rather than concrete disclosure of what the query changes, whether an existing query is replaced, 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?

It is short and front-loads the operation name, which is good, but the second sentence is boilerplate filler that carries no operational meaning for this specific tool. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with zero parameter documentation, the description should at minimum describe the inputs or the effect on an existing definition query. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the essential input and effect information is absent.

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?

All four required parameters (aprx_path, map_name, layer_name, definition_query) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description names none of them, gives no format hints (e.g. path conventions or SQL syntax for the query), and no validity constraints. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 phrase 'set definition query' names a verb and resource, but the sibling set contains arcgis_pro_upsert_definition_query, arcgis_pro_list_definition_queries and arcgis_pro_delete_definition_query, and the description does nothing to separate this tool from upsert. An agent cannot tell from the text which of the near-identical names to invoke.

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 statement of when to use this tool, what state must exist first (an open project, a map, an existing layer), or how it differs from the upsert/list/delete definition-query siblings. The only guidance-like sentence concerns generic write and path limits, not usage conditions.

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