Table Replace Data Source

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 safety is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the mechanism used and that it reads back 'broken' status afterward, hinting the new source may fail to resolve. It still omits permission requirements and what happens to joins/relates during the swap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. The output schema does excuse explaining return values, but parameter behavior, prerequisites, and the side effects of swapping a data source are all 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains none of them. Critical fields like current_workspace, new_workspace, new_dataset_name, validate, ignore_case and auto_update_joins_and_relates are left entirely to name-guessing, including the ambiguous current_workspace vs new_workspace pairing.

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 verb (替换/replace), a specific resource (独立表数据源/standalone table data source), and the underlying mechanism (typed Table.updateConnectionProperties). This is far more than a restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling arcgis_pro_layer_replace_data_source.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. project must be open, table must exist in the named map), and no mention of alternatives such as arcgis_pro_layer_replace_data_source for layers or arcgis_pro_repair_layer_source for broken sources. The agent must infer context entirely.

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