Delete a solution

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the destructive nature, clarifies that unmanaged deletions preserve components while managed deletions remove them, and emphasizes that confirm must be true for the operation to execute. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema, though it does not mention auth requirements or return behavior.

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 a single compact sentence that efficiently conveys multiple key distinctions: unmanaged vs managed behavior, component retention vs removal, and the confirm requirement. It is not padded with filler, though it begins with 'pac solution delete,' which is partly redundant with the tool name.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the critical behavioral distinction between managed and unmanaged solutions and the confirm gate. It does not mention return values or prerequisites, but the schema already covers the confirm dry-run behavior and environment parameter, so the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the important nuance that confirm must be true, but the schema already states that confirm is required to make a live change and that omitting it produces a dry run. The description does not significantly deepen understanding of the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 specifies the action ('delete') and the resource ('solution'), and further distinguishes the two modes: unmanaged solution container deletion with components retained, and managed solution uninstall with components removed. This precise scoping makes it easy to tell apart from sibling deletion tools like cs_delete_connection or cs_delete_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?

The description implies when to use the tool through its detailed definition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions/prerequisites. There is no 'use this when...' guidance, so usage is inferred rather than explicitly directed.

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