Self-elevate to System Administrator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool mutates a live environment, requires confirm:true to actually change anything, and otherwise performs a dry run. It also reveals the underlying command and profile usage. This is strong transparency for a mutation tool, although it repeats the confirm requirement twice and doesn't mention side effects (e.g., reversibility).

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?

The description is brief but contains redundancy: it repeats 'requires confirm: true' verbatim in the third and fifth sentences, and 'Changes a live environment' vs 'Mutates a live environment' say the same thing. The information is front-loaded with the purpose, but the repetition wastes words. It could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

The description covers the critical behavioral aspects: the admin prerequisite, the confirm requirement (and dry-run alternative), and the underlying command/profile. It does not explain return values (no output schema), but for a mutation tool that's likely acceptable. The environment parameter is only in the schema, not the description, but given 100% schema coverage, that's not a gap. Overall, the context is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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?

The input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'confirm: true' and 'active pac auth profile' reinforces schema entries but doesn't add new meaning. Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the exact action: 'Give yourself the System Administrator role in an environment.' This is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from any sibling tool (no other tool appears to perform self-elevation). The purpose is unambiguous and self-contained.

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 explicitly lists the required admin roles ('Needs Global, Power Platform or Dynamics 365 admin') and the critical confirm flag requirement for mutating a live environment. It also indicates the underlying mechanism (running 'pac admin self-elevate'). While it doesn't name an alternative tool, none exists among siblings, so this is acceptable. The guidance is clear about prerequisites and the confirm behavior.

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