salesforce_chat

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a useful scoping/routing detail (dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope), but does not add further behavioral caveats such as possible side effects. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 short lines, front-loads the core verb and resource, and separates argument semantics cleanly. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The missing piece is capability and selection context: nothing tells the agent what the Salesforce domain agent chat can do or when to route an objective here rather than through the many concrete Salesforce tools. This is adequate but not 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. It is simple but meaningful; it could be stronger with examples or accepted input shapes.

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 a specific action ('Run the salesforce domain agent action chat') and pairs it with a free-text objective parameter, which makes the operation clear enough. It is less explicit than it could be about what chat actually does or what results it can achieve, but it is not a tautology and reads as a distinct gateway versus the concrete salesforce_* 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The routing note and sibling list imply this is the natural-language entry point for Salesforce, but the description never tells an agent to prefer this over direct tools such as salesforce_soql_query or salesforce_create_opportunity, nor does it mention openWorldHint/destructive behavior as a consideration.

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