salesforce_auth

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 effectively describes the tool's automatic detection capability and OAuth flow handling. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this persists authentication across sessions, what permissions are required, or potential rate limits. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function, describing automatic behavior, and providing usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant information.

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 authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of the tool's purpose and usage context. However, it doesn't describe what happens after authentication (e.g., token storage, session duration) or potential error scenarios, which would be helpful given the lack of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'force' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Authenticate with Salesforce') and resource (Salesforce authentication system). It distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools which perform data operations (query, create, update, backup, etc.) rather than authentication.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Call this tool if any Salesforce operations fail due to authentication issues') and when it automatically triggers ('Automatically detects if authentication is needed'). It also implicitly suggests alternatives by indicating this is specifically for authentication failures rather than general Salesforce operations.

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