Read or set the online solution version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool mutates a live environment, that confirm: true is required to actually mutate (dry run otherwise), that only some inputs mutate, and that it runs under the active pac auth profile. It does not discuss reversibility or what happens to concurrent versions, but the core safety profile is transparent.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the read/set distinction and the mutation caveat before the pac command detail. Slightly redundant tail ('Only some inputs mutate; see the parameter descriptions') points the reader back to the schema, but overall it is tight and well ordered.

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 dual-mode tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical decision points: which mode is triggered by which input and the confirm-gated mutation behavior. It does not describe return values or pagination, but that is secondary compared to the mutation safety it does disclose.

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 eight parameters in detail (confirm, background, profile, environment, etc.). The description mainly reinforces the solutionVersion semantics and the confirm/dry-run rule; it is accurate but largely additive rather than meaningfully expanding on what the schema already provides.

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 ('read the version of a solution' vs 'set that version') and explains the switch condition (presence of solutionVersion). It clearly separates the two modes, but does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as cs_set_solution_version or cs_upgrade_solution, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 explicit context for both modes: omit solutionVersion to read, provide it to set; and it states that mutation requires confirm: true or a dry run results. However, it names no alternative tool despite cs_set_solution_version existing as a near-identical sibling, so an agent gets no routing guidance between the two.

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