Create an unmanaged solution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: it is a mutating operation, it has an idempotent-ish side effect (creates the publisher if missing), it writes files to workDir, and it will only act for real when confirm: true is passed. It does not state what happens if the solution already exists, required permissions, or reversibility, which matters for a write tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, followed by the routing guidance and the confirm gate. Little waste; the trailing 'Requires confirm: true' is slightly redundant with the schema but serves as an operational warning.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the side effect of publisher creation, and the dry-run gate. It leaves out idempotency behavior on an existing solution name, auth/environment prerequisites, and expected result, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 71%, so the schema already documents environment, workDir, uniqueName format, and publisherPrefix constraints; the description only reinforces confirm and mentions solutionName (a parameter of the sibling cs_create_agent, not of this tool). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the semantic work.

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+resource ('create a new unmanaged solution') and adds the non-obvious scope note that it also creates the publisher if missing and does so by packing an empty manifest and importing it with pac. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cs_import_solution, cs_pack_solution, and cs_create_agent.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule: 'Use it to prepare the container before cs_create_agent with solutionName.' That is real when-to-use guidance tied to a named sibling. It does not say when NOT to use it (e.g., how it relates to cs_import_solution or cs_clone_solution for pre-existing solutions), so it stops short of a 5.

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