Scaffold Ballerina + Salesforce Project in WSO2 Integrator

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; description adds that for custom objects it 'describes from your org and typed in types.bal' and 'fail loudly if missing'. This is transparent about behavior beyond annotations, though could detail project file structure.

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?

Well-structured with pre-conditions and clear sections. However, some sentences (e.g., about standard vs custom) could be integrated into parameter descriptions. Still, front-loaded purpose and efficient overall.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage guidance, pre-conditions, and parameter hints adequately. Lacks explicit return value documentation but acceptable for a scaffolding action.

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 11 parameters thoroughly. Description adds marginal context (e.g., 'custom objects fail loudly'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema.

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 it 'Creates a Ballerina integration project' and distinguishes from sibling 'sf_quickstart' by noting that quickstart wraps this plus credential validation and build step. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises 'For most users, prefer sf_quickstart' and lists pre-conditions (bal CLI, target objects exist). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and differentiates from alternatives.

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