salesforce_passthrough

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about JWT, tenant, and company scoping and dispatcher routing. However, it does not disclose what the underlying action changes, what side effects may occur, or whether it is a write operation in the Salesforce domain.

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 and front-loaded with the action statement, followed by useful routing context and a minimal Args block. There is no filler, though the first sentence edges toward tautology because 'passthrough' is not defined.

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 destructive, open-world passthrough tool with no guidance, this is incomplete. It does not say what the passthrough action does, when to invoke it, what a valid input JSON looks like, or how it relates to the many sibling Salesforce tools. The output schema helps with return values, but the core semantics are missing.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does add meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. But it stops short of giving formats, examples, allowed keys, or how these map to the Salesforce action.

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 verb and resource ('Run the salesforce domain agent action passthrough') and adds routing context, but it never explains what the 'passthrough' action actually does or what effect it has. It does not distinguish itself from the many salesforce_* sibling tools, so an agent cannot tell whether this is the right tool for a given Salesforce task.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as salesforce_chat, salesforce_soql_query, or the other domain-agent actions. Mentioning that it routes through a dispatcher explains mechanism, not usage. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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