create_unmanaged_solution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond that, and it does: a preview-then-create flow, a read-back verification step, and an explicit 'unknown outcomes are never retried' rule that tells the agent how failures are handled. It does not describe what happens on a duplicate unique_name or a conflict, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The retry note is appended in a way that reads slightly like a policy tag rather than flowing prose, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a seven-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the create/verify lifecycle and retry safety but leaves key parameters undocumented. 'Read back its identity' partially compensates for the missing output schema, yet an agent still cannot tell what expected_hash or version do.

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 description coverage is only 14% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It only obliquely gestures at publisher_id ('an existing publisher'), dry_run ('preview'), and identity read-back; expected_hash, version, and the semantics of unique_name versus friendly_name are never explained anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it previews and creates a dedicated unmanaged solution from an existing publisher, then reads back its identity. That clearly separates it from siblings like list_solutions, export_solution, or apply_form_solution_package. It stops short of naming an alternative tool by name, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated at the highest level.

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 phrase 'Preview and create' implies the dry_run path and that a publisher must already exist, which is useful implicit guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives such as import_solution_async or create_new_record, and no prerequisites or permission notes are spelled out.

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