Propose a Solution Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds context beyond them: it writes no config or DB row, marks nothing initialized, walks a warm session workspace without re-analysis, requires a live session, and rejects a recalled one with an error. These are real operational traits not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the step-1-of-2 routing, then handles returns. It is dense and long, but with no output schema the return-format sentences earn their place; a few clauses (e.g., the envelope field enumeration) run long for the value added.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the return JSON (solutionPath, declaredNamespaces, referencedNamespaces, testProjects, detectedTestAttributes, proposalFormat), the capping of the three envelope lists, and the asymmetry between solutions' own vs external namespaces. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (sessionId) with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents that it accepts a session_id or an absolute .sln/.slnx/.slnf path. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: collecting raw material for guided setup of a solution's Layer Profile, Exclude-Namespaces and Test Profile. It explicitly positions itself as 'step 1 of 2' and names apply_solution_config as the writing step, distinguishing it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives precise trigger conditions: use when solution_config_status or the configInit hint of analyze_solution reports an axis as not initialized, or when check_solution_config_drift reports one as stale. Names two alternatives (apply_solution_config for writing, solution_config_status for viewing) with the exact conditions selecting each.

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