add_layer_to_map

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses that it operates on the saved project file (not live Pro session), which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it doesn't cover potential side effects like overwriting data or authorization requirements, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a critical behavioral qualifier. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple addition tool with an output schema. Lacks details on error handling (e.g., if map doesn't exist) or what happens to existing layers, but given the simplicity, it meets a minimum viable standard.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (e.g., 'Dataset to add (FC/raster path)'). The description adds minimal extra value beyond the implementation detail (arcpy.mp) and the note about saved vs. live session. Schema coverage is effectively 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action 'Add a dataset to a map' and the resource '.aprx project', with a reference to arcpy.mp addDataFromPath. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_layer_from_map by focusing on adding data.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it operates on a saved project file, but doesn't provide context on when adding is appropriate or when other tools (e.g., rename_layer) should be used.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.