update_legend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it modifies the layout legend and saves the .aprx project when save=true. It does not cover error conditions, permissions, or side effects, but the core behavior is adequately described.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, suggesting use case, and noting the save behavior. No 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 that an output schema exists (handling return values) and annotations are absent, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., layout must exist), but the main purpose and behavior are well covered.

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 parameter descriptions, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond stating the action (add/remove). With high schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool adds or removes a layer entry in a layout legend using arcpy.mp methods. It distinguishes from siblings like add_layer_to_map by focusing on legend updates, not map layers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar legend tools.

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 says 'Use this to synchronize legends with automated layer changes before exporting maps,' which provides a clear use case. However, it lacks when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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