arcgis_pro_upsert_definition_queryCreate or update a named definition query on an ArcGIS Pro layer or table, and optionally set it as the only active query.
创建或更新图层/表的命名定义查询，并可将其设为唯一活动查询。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| map_name | Yes | ||
| aprx_path | Yes | ||
| is_active | No | ||
| member_name | Yes | ||
| member_type | No | LAYER |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond them: is_active makes the query the only/exclusive active query, which is not in the annotations. It does not cover permissions, side effects on other queries, or error 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification noted elsewhere.
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 described, and the mutation semantics align with annotations. However, for a 7-parameter, 0%-coverage write tool, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently without opening the schema for every field.
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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely implies name (named query), is_active (set as active), and member (layer/table); sql, aprx_path, map_name, member_name, and member_type are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 (create/update, i.e. upsert) and resource (a named definition query on a layer/table), plus the optional active designation. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_definition_queries and delete_definition_query. It stops short of explicitly naming the closest sibling set_definition_query.
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?
It implies usage — upserting a named definition query and optionally making it the sole active one — but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to set_definition_query. Usage context must be inferred from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.