salesforce_bulk_ingest_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not explain whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, if it can be safely retried, or if it requires specific permissions. For a status-check tool, details like polling behavior or idempotency are missing.

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 brief (2 sentences), avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, the sentences are dense and do not prioritize decision-critical information. The routing detail could be deemphasized or omitted in favor of stating the tool's core function.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the result. For a status tool, expected outputs (e.g., job state, error details) are critical. The description also lacks context about the lifecycle of a bulk ingest job and how this step fits in.

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 has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'arguments'. The description adds only: 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This confirms the parameter type but provides no information about what keys/values are expected. The agent is left to guess what arguments the connector operation requires.

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 names the tool as 'bulk_ingest_status' but does not explicitly state its purpose (e.g., 'Check the status of a Salesforce bulk ingest job'). It uses a tautological phrasing 'Salesforce connector operation bulk_ingest_status' which provides little clarity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like salesforce_bulk_ingest_results, which might also report status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use status vs. results vs. create). There is no mention of prerequisites, success criteria, or context. The agent has no way to decide if this is the correct tool for checking ingestion progress.

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