Add license plan files to a solution project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: 'Local file change only' (non-destructive to remote state) and 'Runs pac solution add-license with the active pac auth profile' (delegation and auth dependency). It does not disclose failure behavior, reversibility, or what happens after the files are attached, which matters for a file-mutating tool with no annotation safety hints.

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?

Four short sentences with zero waste: purpose is front-loaded, followed by the cwd prerequisite, the local-only guarantee, and the pac delegation detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and behavioral scope well. The main gap is that it does not disclose the return value (no output schema exists, so the description would need to state it), nor the effect of the background parameter on jobId behavior. Otherwise it is complete for an attachment-style command.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including the CSV column layouts for planMappingFile and planDefinitionFile. The description reinforces the cwd requirement ('Run in the solution project folder') but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Attach license plan definition and mapping CSV files to a solution project (ISV licensing).' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like cs_add_solution_component and cs_add_solution_reference, which target different artifact types within a solution. The title reinforces the same resource.

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 gives a clear usage condition — 'Run in the solution project folder (cwd)' — and scopes it to ISV licensing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool versus siblings such as cs_add_solution_component, cs_add_solution_reference, or cs_pack_solution. The context is implied rather than stated as exclusions.

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