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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'create' and the resource, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., writing to Salesforce), the requirement of a subject, what 'follow-up' entails, or how related records are linked via relatedId. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified given the tool's complexity. It essentially restates the tool name and provides no additional structured information, making it insufficiently informative rather than appropriately concise.

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?

This tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description offers zero context about usage, parameter values, return behavior, or relationship to other Salesforce objects. It is completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 4 parameters (note, dueDate, subject, relatedId) with 0% description coverage, and the description itself mentions none of them. The agent receives no explanation of what each field represents or how to populate them, leaving the parameters completely opaque.

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 specifies the verb 'create' and the resource 'Salesforce task or follow-up', clearly indicating a creation operation on a Salesforce task. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_create_contact or sf_create_opportunity by naming the task resource, and the 'follow-up' hint adds context without obscuring the core purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sf_log_call or create_calendar_event. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would lead an agent to select this tool over its siblings.

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