Commit pending ArcGIS Pro edits to unlock data and enable deletion or overwriting of edited datasets.
Commit pending edits. ArcGIS Pro keeps edits open so they can be undone, which also leaves the data locked until they are saved -- deleting or overwriting an edited dataset fails until then.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: edits are held open, the dataset remains locked, and delete/overwrite operations fail until saving. It omits what happens after the commit (undo availability, conflict/permission failure modes), which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Front-loaded imperative followed by one explanatory sentence with no filler. The second sentence is slightly run-on but each clause conveys a distinct consequence of not saving.
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?
Zero parameters and an output schema means the description need not cover return values or argument syntax. It supplies the lock/undo context an agent needs to decide to call it; only an explicit reference to discard_edits as the contrasting action is absent.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is missing.
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?
States a specific verb and object ('Commit pending edits'), which an agent can map to the ArcGIS Pro edit-session model. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling discard_edits, so sibling routing is left to inference from the verb choice.
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?
Gives clear situational context: edits stay open/undoable and the data stays locked, so this is the tool to call when an edited dataset must be deletable or overwritable. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name discard_edits as the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.