salesforce_create

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 mentions 'Automatically handles required fields validation,' which adds some context about validation behavior. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral trait (validation handling). Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of creating records in Salesforce (a mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain more about behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error cases, or what the return value looks like. The current description leaves too many gaps for effective tool use by an AI agent.

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 fully documents both parameters ('sobject' and 'data'). The description doesn't add any meaningful semantics beyond what's in the schema—it repeats the idea of creating a record but doesn't clarify parameter usage, constraints, or examples not already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new record in any Salesforce object'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'salesforce_update' and 'salesforce_delete' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't specifically differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'salesforce_setup' might also involve creation), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'salesforce_create' over 'salesforce_update' for existing records, or when to use 'salesforce_query' to check for duplicates first. There's also no mention of prerequisites like authentication or Salesforce object availability.

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