Run Solution Checker

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that the tool mutates a live environment, requires confirm: true, performs a dry run otherwise, and only some inputs mutate. It also names the underlying pac command and active auth profile behavior, adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: what it does, when to use it, how it executes, and the critical mutation caveat. The most important safety information is near the end but still clearly flagged.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow placement, execution mechanism, and mutation behavior. The parameter schema is rich and 100% covered, but the description could still add a little more about what a successful run returns or how output is structured.

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 parameters are already fully documented and the description does not need to compensate. The description adds a general warning about mutation for some inputs and points to the parameter descriptions, but it does not add new semantic detail for any specific parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Analyse solution zip files') and resource ('Power Apps Checker service') and clarifies it writes results locally. It also names the quality-gate role before cs_deploy_solution, which distinguishes it from deployment and other solution-related tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use it as a quality gate before cs_deploy_solution, giving clear context for when it belongs in a workflow. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives such as cs_check_drift, so it stops short of a full 5.

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