Remove a saved bookmark from an ArcGIS Pro map to clean up navigation views and update map states. Optionally target a specific map; defaults to the active map.
Delete a bookmark from a map.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| map_name | No | Map to act on; defaults to the active map. | |
| bookmark_name | Yes | Bookmark to delete. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only restates that a deletion occurs; it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, what permissions are needed, what happens if the bookmark does not exist, or how the active map default behaves.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action without wasting tokens.
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?
For a simple deletion tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the absence of annotations means it should do more to cover destructive behavior and usage context.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only 'from a map' and no additional syntax, default behavior, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Delete'), resource ('bookmark'), and scope ('from a map'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings such as list_bookmarks, create_bookmark, and apply_bookmark without requiring schema inspection.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or warnings about deletion. The agent must infer usage solely 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.