Create a solution project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool runs 'pac solution init' and uses the active pac auth profile, but it does not state whether it overwrites existing files, what files are created, whether it requires an empty directory, or what happens on failure. As a mutation tool that scaffolds a project, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and includes the command invocation, making it efficient and easily scannable. Every word adds value.

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 scaffold tool with 7 parameters (all schema-documented) and no output schema, the description explains the core purpose and the command used, but it omits details about expected outcomes (e.g., success indicators, next steps) and potential side effects. Given the lack of annotations, the description should be more thorough to make the tool fully self-contained for an agent.

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 for all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond that. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Scaffold a Dataverse solution project'), identifies the resource type (.cdsproj), and specifies the context (source-controlled solution development). It also names the underlying command ('pac solution init'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cs_create_solution. This gives an agent precise understanding of what the tool does.

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 provides the intended use case ('for source-controlled solution development'), which signals when to apply it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use cs_create_solution when you need a solution without source control.' The context is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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