Update a service-principal Dataverse connection

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden; it clearly states that the command 'mutates a live environment' and ties the mutation guard to confirm: true, with a dry-run fallback. It also names the auth context via the active pac auth profile. It does not fully cover reversibility, permissions, or side effects on existing connections, but the core mutation risk is disclosed.

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 sentences deliver the action, the shell command, and the critical safety gate with no filler. The most decision-relevant fact (mutates a live environment) is clearly separated and easy to notice.

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 mutating 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus the rich parameter schema is largely sufficient to call the tool correctly: purpose, command, auth context, and the mandatory confirm flag are all present. It omits return/output expectations and explicit alternative routing, but those are partially covered by the background/jobId parameter and sibling names.

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 structured fields already document tenantId, applicationId, clientSecret, confirm, and profile in detail. The description mostly echoes the profile default and confirm semantics rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 action ('Rotate the app registration or secret') and names the exact resource ('service-principal Dataverse connection') and underlying command ('pac connection update'). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like cs_create_connection and cs_delete_connection.

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?

It clearly establishes the intended scenario: rotating credentials on an existing service-principal connection, and it gives a concrete execution condition (confirm: true or dry run). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.