Update Report Section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds that all sections are read back (output behavior) and that a single unique section is targeted, which is useful but modest additional context.

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, well front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it packs multiple operations without further structuring.

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-value detail is not needed, and the read-back note covers result behavior. However, for a mutation tool with 8 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves several parameters and the target report/map context underspecified.

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 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps to source_kind/source_identifier (data source), definition_query, and visible, but leaves aprx_path, report_name, section_name, and map_name unexplained—partial compensation 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 states a specific verb (update) and resource (REPORT_SECTION) and enumerates the mutable facets: data source, definitionQuery, and visibility. It also notes the read-back of all sections. It does not name a sibling (e.g., arcgis_pro_report_sections) to differentiate, which keeps it from a 5.

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 when-to-use statement, no mention of the sibling listing tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the verb 'update'.

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