mosaic_to_new_raster

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Only states it reads inputs and writes output; lacks information on side effects, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or computational intensity. The mention of ArcPy implies a processing function but is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and action. No redundant phrases; each sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

Covers basic operation and output location requirement. With an output schema present, return values are documented. Missing prerequisites (spatial reference alignment), overwrite behavior, and error conditions. Adequate but could be more thorough.

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 descriptions fully cover each parameter, so description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema provides good parameter documentation; description does not compensate for 0% coverage in its own text.

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?

Uses specific verbs 'merge multiple raster datasets' and provides concrete examples (tiles, scenes, DEM sheets, image bands). Distinct from sibling tools like merge_features or clip_raster by focusing on raster mosaicking.

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?

Clearly states use case (combining tiles/scenes) and prerequisite (two or more input rasters). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions, but context from sibling list suffices for differentiation.

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