Unregister As Versioned

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it requires an enterprise write gate, a destructive gate, and exact path echo, and discarding edits requires a fixed confirmation phrase.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the operation and then the gating requirements. No filler, though the semicolon-packed clause is somewhat terse.

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 explained. The purpose and gating are covered, but with 0% schema coverage and four non-required parameters, the description omits semantics for keep_edit and compress_default, leaving the agent unable to fully configure the call.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It hints at confirm_dataset_path ('exact path echo') and confirm_discard_edits ('fixed confirmation phrase'), but says nothing about keep_edit or compress_default, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (unregister versioning) and resource (controlled .sde dataset), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling arcgis_pro_register_as_versioned. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the operation and target are unambiguous.

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 lists prerequisites (enterprise write gate, destructive gate, exact path echo, confirmation phrase for discarding edits), which implies context, but it never states when to choose this tool over register_as_versioned or other dataset maintenance tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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