Add license plan files to a solution project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a local file change only (not a tenant push), that it wraps 'pac solution add-license', and that it uses the active pac auth profile. It doesn't cover failure modes or exactly which project files are mutated, but the key side-effect profile is disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the operating constraint, then the side-effect and underlying command. No filler, and the most important constraint (local-only change) is stated plainly.

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 6-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, execution context, side effects, and the underlying CLI command. Return values are not needed since it is a local file change. Minor gap: no mention of what to do on validation failure of the CSVs.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the two CSV files and cwd. The description only adds marginal meaning by clarifying that cwd should be the solution project folder. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (attach) plus the exact resources (license plan definition and mapping CSV files), scoped to a solution project with the ISV licensing context. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like cs_add_solution_component or cs_add_solution_reference by naming the specific artifacts involved.

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 states the operating context ('Run in the solution project folder (cwd)') and the ISV licensing scenario, which implies when to use it. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling add-tools (e.g., cs_add_solution_component), leaving the agent to infer selection. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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