Create a solution project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the underlying 'pac solution init' command and that it uses the active auth profile, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits prerequisites (pac installed/authenticated), overwrite behavior when the directory exists, and any side effects on disk.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and artifact, with zero filler. The mechanism sentence adds value rather than restating the 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?

A disk-mutating scaffold tool with no annotations and no output schema: the description says what it creates and how, but leaves success output, idempotency/overwrite behavior, and prerequisites unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool that writes to the filesystem.

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 7 parameters in detail (cwd, profile, background, timeout, outputDirectory, publisher fields). The description adds only that auth uses the active profile, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (scaffold) and resource (Dataverse solution project/.cdsproj) and even names the underlying command. The 'on disk for source-controlled solution development' scoping distinguishes it conceptually from cs_create_solution, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'For source-controlled solution development' implies the use case, but there is no explicit routing against the many solution siblings (cs_create_solution, cs_clone_solution, cs_pull_solution). The agent must infer which solution-creating tool applies.

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