Set the solution version in Solution.xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key side effect ('Local file change only') and the execution context ('Runs pac solution version with the active pac auth profile'). It does not mention return values or failure modes, but the main behavioral traits are present.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action and resource front-loaded, followed by scope and implementation detail. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without filler.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the high-level description is useful but leaves strategy-to-parameter relationships implicit (e.g., filename belongs to the filetracking strategy) and does not describe what the command returns. The rich schema partly compensates, but a sentence connecting the strategies to the parameters would make it complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the strategy names but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it neither compensates further nor introduces confusion.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update the version in a local unpacked solution's Solution.xml.' It further differentiates from online-version siblings by explicitly stating 'Local file change only,' and names the underlying pac command, so the tool's purpose is unmistakable.

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 clearly scopes the tool to local unpacked solutions and says it only changes local files, which prevents confusion with online solution versioning. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, 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.