Apply a staged solution upgrade

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly warns that the command 'Mutates a live environment' and explains the dry-run behavior when confirm is not set. It also mentions the active pac auth profile, giving an important authentication context. It could go further to note irreversibility or side effects on existing solution customizations, but the core safety-critical behavior is well covered.

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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct function: purpose, execution mechanism, and safety warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and ends with the most critical operational constraint. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

The description adequately covers the full operation context: staged-upgrade scenario, command execution, profile usage, and mutation danger. With 9 parameters but 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and invoke it safely. It does not explain return values, but that is not required given the schema's parameter documentation.

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 for parameter semantics is 3. The tool description repeats the 'confirm: true' requirement that is already fully documented in the schema, but it adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond that. With high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Complete') and resource ('managed solution upgrade') with a critical qualifier ('imported as a staged upgrade'). This clearly distinguishes it from general solution import or deployment tools listed among siblings. The explicit command reference ('pac solution upgrade') adds further precision.

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 provides clear context for when the tool should be used: after a staged upgrade has been imported via pac or the portal. It also implies a prerequisite ('confirm: true') for actual execution. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the staged-upgrade framing makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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