symmetrical_difference

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool creates a new output feature class and does not modify inputs. However, it omits potential behaviors like geometry type requirements, coordinate system handling, or error conditions. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance and behavioral notes. It is front-loaded with the key action and is free of filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main operation, inputs, and outputs succinctly. It mentions that inputs are unchanged and outputs are new. It could optionally discuss geometry type compatibility or preprocessing steps, but missing these does not leave a significant gap for an AI agent.

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 contains detailed descriptions for all parameters (in_features, out_features, overlay_features, overwrite). The tool description does not add any additional parameter information, so it provides no extra value beyond the schema. With schema descriptions present, a baseline score of 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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Create the non-overlapping parts of two feature layers using ArcPy SymmetricalDifference.' It immediately defines the tool's core function and differentiates from siblings like intersect or union. The use cases (compare boundaries, detect areas in only one dataset, isolate disagreement) further clarify purpose.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to compare boundaries, detect areas present in only one of two datasets, or isolate disagreement between two polygon/line sources.' It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the specific use cases imply appropriate contexts. It also notes that inputs are not modified, which is helpful.

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