update_legend

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

The description discloses key behaviors: modifying the legend and saving the .aprx project when save=true. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist).

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and adding usage context without any wasted words.

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, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. It could mention optional parameters or error handling, but is largely complete.

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 parameter descriptions, so the tool description adds minimal value by implicitly referencing save=true. The description does not elaborate on other parameters like map_frame or legend_name.

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 tool adds or removes a layer entry in a legend using specific arcpy.mp methods, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_layer_to_map or remove_layer_from_map.

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 provides context by stating 'Use this to synchronize legends with automated layer changes before exporting maps,' but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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