Update tenant settings

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 'Affects the whole tenant' and 'Mutates a live environment: requires confirm: true (a dry run otherwise)', which reveals the mutation risk and the dry-run safety mechanism. It also names the underlying pac command. It does not cover permission requirements or reversibility, but the key behavioral traits are 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?

The description is three sentences long and front-loads the core purpose ('Change tenant-wide settings'). It includes a useful example and critical warnings about confirm. The only minor redundancy is repeating the confirm requirement twice, which slightly detracts from conciseness but does not waste significant space.

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 core behavior, mutation risk, and the command invocation. However, with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it leaves gaps: it does not describe what happens if both settingsFile and settingName are provided, does not mention the return/output behavior, and does not discuss background execution or timeout handling beyond what the schema already states. These are meaningful gaps for a complex administrative tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing a concrete example setting path (powerPlatform.governance.disableDeveloperEnvironmentCreationByNonAdminUsers), clarifying the format for settingName, and linking settingsFile to the sibling cs_admin_list_tenant_settings. This goes beyond simple schema repetition.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Change tenant-wide settings' and specifies two modes: from a settings file or one setting at a time, with a concrete example path. It identifies the resource (tenant-wide settings) and the underlying pac command. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cs_admin_set_governance_config, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides context on when to use the tool: for tenant-wide settings changes, using either a settings file or a single setting, and notes it runs with the active pac auth profile. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so the guidance 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.