Validate Salesforce Connection

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds that it makes a live API call and returns specific fields (connected, org_id, etc.), which enhances transparency. No contradictions.

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: one sentence for purpose and usage, then a bullet list of return values. Every sentence earns its place. No fluff.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and return values. It does not address error cases (e.g., what if credentials invalid?), but the return structure implies connected: boolean. Overall, adequate for a validation tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with full descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning; it only describes the return values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool tests Salesforce credentials with a live API call. The title 'Validate Salesforce Connection' and the first sentence specify the verb and resource. Among siblings like sf_get_oauth_auth_url and sf_exchange_oauth_code, this tool is distinct as a validation step.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool 'before scaffolding a project to confirm credentials work,' providing clear context. It does not elaborate on when not to use it or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficiently clear for an agent.

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