Apply a staged solution upgrade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses that this mutates a live environment, that confirm: true is required to commit, and that omitting it yields a dry run. It does not state reversibility/irreversibility or failure behavior, which matters for a mutation tool on a live tenant.

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 tight sentences: what it is, how it runs, and the safety constraint, with the mutation/confirm warning front-loaded at the end where it is most salient. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the critical behavioral facts (live-environment mutation, confirm gate, dry-run fallback, auth profile). Only failure/rollback behavior and a hint about the dry-run/result shape are missing.

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 nine parameters including confirm and profile. The description reinforces the confirm semantics and mentions the active pac auth profile, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Complete a managed solution upgrade') with the precondition that the solution was imported as a staged upgrade, which cleanly distinguishes it from cs_import_solution and cs_deploy_solution. It even names the upstream mechanism (pac solution import --stage-and-upgrade / 'Stage for upgrade'), so the agent knows exactly which lifecycle step this covers.

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 precondition is stated explicitly: use this only for a solution already imported as a staged upgrade. That is a clear when-to-use condition, but it never names the sibling to use for the import/deploy steps themselves, so a novice agent is left to infer cs_import_solution.

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