Create a service-principal Dataverse connection

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates a live environment and requires confirm: true (otherwise a dry run), which is a critical behavioral trait. It also states the underlying pac command and authentication method. It doesn't describe reversibility or failure modes, but the mutation and confirm requirement are well covered.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds scope and behavioral notes, and ends with the mutation requirement. Every sentence earns its place and the text is highly efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (10 params, 4 required), the description adequately covers purpose, scope, execution method, and the key mutation behavior. The schema handles parameter details, and there is no output schema, so return values aren't expected. The description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it reinforces the confirm requirement but that is already in the schema's parameter description. Therefore, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool creates a Dataverse connection using an app registration (application id + client secret) for service-principal authentication. It explicitly distinguishes this from connector connections (SharePoint, Outlook, MCP servers), which must be created in the portal, thus separating it from sibling tools like cs_update_connection and cs_delete_connection.

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 explicitly says 'This is the only connection kind pac can create' and notes connector connections are handled in the portal, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also mentions it runs 'pac connection create' with the active pac auth profile, providing operational context.

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