arcgis_pro_update_table_propertiesUpdate a standalone table's name or definition query in an ArcGIS Pro project, then read the properties back to verify changes.
更新独立表名称或 definitionQuery 并读回核验。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| map_name | Yes | ||
| new_name | No | ||
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| table_name | Yes | ||
| definition_query | No |
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a useful behavioral detail by saying it reads back after updating to verify, but it does not cover permissions, side effects, or conflict behavior.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but for a five-parameter mutation tool it is arguably too terse to be appropriately sized.
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 details need not be described. However, with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and many sibling tools, the description omits required context about paths, maps, and the distinction between table_name and new_name.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions only the table name and definitionQuery concepts and does not explain aprx_path, map_name, table_name, or new_name semantics.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: updating a standalone table's name or definitionQuery. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from close siblings such as arcgis_pro_upsert_definition_query, arcgis_pro_set_definition_query, or arcgis_pro_table_properties.
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 alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the capability, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.