Update Label Expression

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. The description adds a vague note that writes and path restrictions depend on service capabilities and that results are verifiable and structured. It does not contradict annotations, but it lacks specifics about what is modified, required permissions, or side effects.

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 short and front-loads the action, but the second sentence contains generic boilerplate about structured results and service-dependent write/path restrictions. Given the tool's complexity, the extreme brevity leaves key details unstated rather than being productively concise.

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?

Annotations and an output schema exist, so the description need not explain safety or return values. However, with six parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the definition is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Critical inputs such as expression_engine and label_class_name are entirely undocumented.

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% and six parameters are present, including required aprx_path, map_name, layer_name, and expression. The description mentions no parameter names, formats, defaults, or meaning. It therefore fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a general verb and resource: '更新标注' (update labels). However, it does not specify that the tool updates a label expression in a layer, which is the key distinction implied by the tool name and required parameters. With many sibling label-related tools, this broad phrasing does not help an agent reliably differentiate it.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcgis_pro_upsert_label_class, arcgis_pro_toggle_layer_labels, or arcgis_pro_set_label_font. The phrase about write and path restrictions depending on service capabilities is a constraint, not usage guidance. The agent must infer applicability entirely from the tool name.

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