Fix simple sub-command option consistency

[svanderbleek]

Description of changes

I made the "easy" CLI argument consistency changes. I changed principal to -l and cleaned up other places where there was inconsistency like schema short -s not being everywhere and changing template-linked -t to -k because it would conflict if the short was added to the other use.

Harder to determine questions are

• if positional argument for policy should be removed from format and changed to use the option only (or support both somehow)
• if standard input reading of policy file should be added everywhere

Issue #403

Checklist for requesting a review

I'm not sure how to fill this in, the changes could be considered breaking if someone coded against the CLI. There was no way to handle -p conflict without it being breaking.

The change in this PR is (choose one, and delete the other options):

• A breaking change requiring a major version bump to cedar-policy (e.g., changes to the signature of an existing API).
• A backwards-compatible change requiring a minor version bump to cedar-policy (e.g., addition of a new API).
• A bug fix or other functionality change requiring a patch to cedar-policy.
• A change "invisible" to users (e.g., documentation, changes to "internal" crates like cedar-policy-core, cedar-validator, etc.)
• A change (breaking or otherwise) that only impacts unreleased or experimental code.

I confirm that this PR (choose one, and delete the other options):

• Updates the "Unreleased" section of the CHANGELOG with a description of my change (required for major/minor version bumps).
• Does not update the CHANGELOG because my change does not significantly impact released code.

I confirm that cedar-spec (choose one, and delete the other options):

• Does not require updates because my change does not impact the Cedar Dafny model or DRT infrastructure.
• Requires updates, and I have made / will make these updates myself. (Please include in your description a timeline or link to the relevant PR in cedar-spec, and how you have tested that your updates are correct.)
• Requires updates, but I do not plan to make them in the near future. (Make sure that your changes are hidden behind a feature flag to mark them as experimental.)
• I'm not sure how my change impacts cedar-spec. (Post your PR anyways, and we'll discuss in the comments.)

Disclaimer

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

[cdisselkoen]

Thanks for the PR! This change makes sense to me. And we can ship breaking behavior changes in the upcoming 3.0 release, so no worries there.

[aaronjeline]

Looks great, thanks!

[cdisselkoen]

I took the liberty of adding a small changelog update on the PR branch. Let me know if there's anything wrong with it