salesforce_create_task

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds only routing/scope context ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') and remains silent about what is created, whether it is reversible, or what side effects the dispatched create_task action may have. Given the destructive annotation, more disclosure is expected.

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 short, front-loads the main action, and uses an Args list that makes the two parameters easy to scan. The first sentence and the routing sentence overlap slightly, but there is no meaningful bloat.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and the parameter list is short, the description lacks the domain semantics needed to invoke the tool correctly: what create_task does in Salesforce, what a valid message/inputs payload looks like, and how this differs from the many salesforce and crm siblings. An agent cannot confidently select this tool from the large sibling list based on this text.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It says message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which is more than the schema provides, but still leaves the agent guessing about what structured inputs are valid, what fields the action expects, and how message and inputs interact. This is insufficient for constructing a correct call.

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 opens with 'Run the salesforce domain agent action `create_task`.' This is essentially the tool name restated as a dispatcher invocation and never says what the action does semantically (e.g., creates a Salesforce task with what records/fields). It also doesn't separate this tool from sibling create_crm_task or salesforce_create_contact, so the agent can't tell what actual outcome it produces.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. It only explains routing through the platform dispatcher. With siblings like create_crm_task, salesforce_create_note, and salesforce_log_call present, an agent gets no help choosing this over them.

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