Create a pac auth profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that interactive mode opens pac's own browser, that background:true returns a jobId immediately, that foreground mode blocks past the client timeout, that device code requires a terminal this server cannot provide, and that the underlying command runs as the active pac auth profile. These are exactly the execution traits an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is pure filler, but the middle is dense with stacked parenthetical conditions (interactive, background, device code) that could be structured more cleanly. Still appropriately sized for an 18-parameter tool with complex execution modes.

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 an 18-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the hard parts: mode selection, blocking vs jobId behavior, the polling follow-up, and the stdin limitation. It does not explain the return payload beyond jobId or detail every credential combination, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it groups parameters into auth modes (applicationId + clientSecret + tenant for service principal), explains why background exists and what it returns, and constrains deviceCode by the missing stdin. It stops short of mapping every credential parameter to its mode, but the added context is genuine.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a pac authentication profile') and enumerates the supported auth modes, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as cs_select_auth_profile, cs_login, or cs_list_auth_profiles, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

It gives strong conditional guidance: non-interactive flows (service principal, certificate, managed identity, federation) versus interactive sign-in, and an explicit when/when-not for background:true ('Without background this blocks until the sign-in finishes and the client will usually give up first'). It names cs_job_status as the follow-up, but it does not name alternative sibling tools an agent might choose instead.

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