salesforce_update_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update fields' and does not reveal whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens if the record does not exist, whether permissions are required, or how the org parameter affects behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It delivers the core action and target in a compact form, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 is a mutating tool with four parameters, a nested data object, no annotations, and an output schema, yet the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain update semantics (partial vs. replace), error behavior, or how this tool fits with sibling tools like salesforce_create_record and salesforce_delete_record. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other essential context is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the structure of 'data', the format of 'record_id', valid values for 'object_type', or the meaning of 'org'. The word 'fields' weakly hints at the 'data' parameter but adds little beyond the schema titles.

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 specifies the action ('Update fields'), the target resource ('existing Salesforce record'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and query. It is a precise, non-tautological statement of the tool's 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 phrase 'existing' implies this tool is for records that already exist, providing a minimal usage hint, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over salesforce_create_record or mention any alternatives. There are no clear 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidelines.

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