Add a Salesforce SObject to an Existing Ballerina Project

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

The description discloses different behaviors for standard vs custom objects (appending to types.bal) and the return value, beyond what annotations provide. However, it does not mention error conditions, duplicate handling, or verification steps, though annotations already indicate non-destructive and open-world nature.

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 three sentences with no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently covers the key distinction and output.

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?

The description explains the purpose and output (resource-route snippet) but lacks detail on error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., scaffolded project, valid Salesforce connection), and exact file locations. Given the complexity of 6 required parameters and file modification, it is moderately complete.

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 input schema already covers all 6 parameters with descriptions; the tool description adds only marginal context (e.g., 'already-scaffolded' relating to project_path). With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3 and the description provides no additional parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Adds a new SObject' and clearly identifies the context 'to an already-scaffolded project'. It distinguishes between standard and custom objects with distinct behaviors, and uniquely defines the tool among siblings.

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 implies usage after project scaffolding but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool, such as when the project is not yet scaffolded or when a different operation (e.g., describing an SObject) is more appropriate.

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