arcgis_pro_set_map_default_cameraSet the default camera for a map in an ArcGIS Pro project by specifying heading, pitch, roll, and scale to ensure consistent views on open.
ArcGIS Pro：设置地图。返回可验证的结构化结果；写入和路径限制以服务能力为准。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roll | No | ||
| pitch | No | ||
| scale | No | ||
| heading | No | ||
| map_name | Yes | ||
| aprx_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds only a vague boilerplate clause about write/path restrictions being 'subject to service capabilities', which conveys no concrete behavior such as what gets overwritten (the map's saved default camera) or auth needs.
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-loaded, but the second sentence is generic boilerplate that applies to nearly every tool in this server and earns no place here. Brevity is achieved by omission rather than by precision.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 6-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage the description supplies neither parameter meaning nor usage context, leaving the agent materially under-informed about what the call does.
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 6 parameters, and the description explains none of them. The roll/pitch/heading/scale camera semantics and the aprx_path/map_name targeting are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent with bare type names only.
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 says only 'ArcGIS Pro：设置地图' (set map), which restates the title's domain without naming the camera concept that the tool name and title convey. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it sets a camera, a scale, or an extent, nor how it differs from siblings like arcgis_pro_map_camera or arcgis_pro_set_active_view_camera.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the several camera/view siblings (map_camera, set_active_view_camera, sdk_set_camera, set_map_reference_scale). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.