salesforce_start_agent_session

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful context about JWT/tenant/company scope, which is an auth-related behavior, but does not mention the side effects of starting a session (e.g., state creation or resource consumption). It does not contradict 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 short, with a clear opening action statement, a scoping line, and a compact Args list. Every line serves a purpose, though the first line partially duplicates the tool name. Overall it is well-structured and easy to scan.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and only two optional parameters, the description covers invocation basics. However, it lacks any explanation of what starting an agent session accomplishes, its side effects, or how `message` and `inputs` interact, leaving the agent to infer important behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 full burden of explaining parameters. It defines `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, which adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema's bare property names and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool runs a specific Salesforce domain agent action named `start_agent_session`, and adds routing detail about the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. While the first line is close to a restatement of the name, the routing context clarifies the mechanism and scope.

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 alternatives like `dispatch_domain_agent`, `salesforce_chat`, or other `salesforce_*` tools. The description implies general usage through the free-text 'message' and optional 'inputs' but does not state selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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