salesforce_invoke_models_api

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: the action is routed under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not describe side effects, external API calls, rate limits, or mutation of Salesforce data, but the annotations cover the core risk profile. No contradiction with 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 compact, front-loaded with the action being run, and contains no filler. The Args section is easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for such a thin definition, though it borders on under-specification because the semantic payload is so small.

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?

For a generic invocation wrapper with destructive=true, openWorldHint=true, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what invoke_models_api does, what kind of message/inputs are valid, when it is the right Salesforce entry point, or what the action might change. The routing/scoping sentence helps, but an agent would still struggle to call it correctly with meaningful arguments.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add minimal meaning: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs.' However, it gives no example, no expected JSON shape, no guidance on how message and inputs interact, and no indication of what the Salesforce models API expects. This is only minimally sufficient.

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 does state a specific verb and resource: it 'Run[s] the salesforce domain agent action invoke_models_api' and explains it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher. However, it never says what invoke_models_api actually does, what 'models API' refers to, or what outcome the agent should expect. It also does not differentiate this from sibling tools like salesforce_invoke_prompt_template, salesforce_passthrough, or dispatch_domain_agent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many Salesforce and generic invocation siblings. The description mentions the dispatcher and scope ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') but does not state the conditions that should lead an agent to select this tool, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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