Add a component to a solution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the two traits that matter most: this mutates a live environment and is gated behind confirm: true, returning a dry run without it. It also names the underlying 'pac solution add-solution-component' command and the auth profile used. It stops short of idempotency/duplicate handling, error behavior, or whether changes are reversible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the mechanism and the safety gate. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the addressing scheme, the execution mechanism and the confirm gate. Parameter mechanics (async, background/jobId, timeout, cwd, profile resolution) are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage, but the description says nothing about outcomes or failure modes.

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 100%, so every parameter including componentType examples and confirm semantics is already documented in the schema. The description restates the same information ('by schema name or id and component type code') without adding syntax, formatting, or defaults beyond the schema. 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 ('Add an existing component ... to an unmanaged solution'), enumerates the component kinds (agent, flow, connection reference, environment variable, table) and the two addressing modes (schema name/id plus type code). This is clearly distinguishable from neighbors such as cs_add_solution_reference, cs_add_solution_license and cs_remove_component.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition for real use: the tool mutates a live environment and requires confirm: true, otherwise it is a dry run. It also anchors the operation to the active pac auth profile. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when to prefer cs_add_solution_reference / cs_import_solution instead.

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