salesforce_update

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 states it 'Requires the record ID and field values to update,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and requirements, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from prerequisites.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, authentication), doesn't explain return values, and provides minimal usage guidance, making it inadequate for safe and effective agent use.

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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Requires the record ID and field values to update,' which restates what the schema says. 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 ('Update') and resource ('existing record in any Salesforce object'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'salesforce_create' or 'salesforce_delete', which would require mentioning it modifies existing records rather than creating new ones or removing them.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to siblings like 'salesforce_create' for new records or 'salesforce_query' for reading, or specify scenarios where this update is appropriate, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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