Remove a join from a layer or table in ArcGIS Pro to detach joined fields and restore the original dataset.
Remove a join from a layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| map_name | No | Map to act on; defaults to the active map. | |
| join_name | No | Join to remove; defaults to the last one. | |
| layer_name | Yes | Layer or table name as shown by get_layers, or a full dataset path. |
| 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-disclosure burden. It implies a destructive removal but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether edits must be saved, or what side effects occur on the layer.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. However, it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, so it does not reach the highest level of helpful conciseness.
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 explained, and the input schema is fully documented. But for a destructive tool with no annotations, the description should disclose basic behavioral context such as whether the removal is immediate or requires a save, which it does not.
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 the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clear verb ('Remove') and resource ('join from a layer'), so an agent can understand the core operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as add_join or remove_layer, but the inverse relationship is obvious enough.
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 conditions. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.