Back up the tenant configuration to files

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility and does so admirably: it boldly states 'Read-only for the tenant; it only writes files', discloses admin-account execution, and explains the independent-capture behavior with skipped failures. This gives an agent a trustworthy mental model of side effects and resilience without any structured 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?

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: main action and scope, safety guarantee, auth requirement, and failure fallback. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before enumerating details, and contains no filler or redundancy with the schema.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, auth, and error behavior unusually well. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit description of the return format beyond the mention of 'skipped' entries; an agent might wonder what the tool returns (file list, summary, etc.), but this is minor given the clarity of everything else.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level enumeration of captured objects (e.g., DLPs, environment groups, security roles) that maps loosely to include* flags, and it repeats the profile fallback, but it does not provide significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write the tenant's Power Platform configuration to local files', immediately distinguishing it from the many cs_admin_list_* siblings by stating it is a backup/write-to-files operation. It enumerates the exact contents captured (tenant settings, environments, DLP policies, per-environment details, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 clear context: it is meant for 'reference, diffing and source control', requires an admin account ('Runs as the admin account'), and notes the partial-failure fallback ('Each capture is independent... reported in skipped'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the use cases and prerequisites are clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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