salesforce_submit_for_approval

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral trait: it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which clarifies execution context and auth boundaries. However, it does not disclose potential side effects beyond the annotations (e.g., whether an approval request is created, notifications sent, or data modified). The description neither contradicts the annotations nor adds rich behavioral detail.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Run the salesforce domain agent action submit_for_approval'), followed by a routing note and two concise arg definitions. Every sentence has a purpose, and the structure is clean. It loses one point because the routing sentence is somewhat implementation-specific and could be more usefully replaced with a clearer explanation of the action's outcome.

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 dispatcher that can submit anything for approval, the description is too thin. It does not state what records or objects qualify, how the output should be interpreted (despite an output schema existing, its content is unknown), what prerequisites exist, or what the approval workflow entails. The meaningful sibling tools (list_pending_approvals, get_approval_details) hint at a surrounding process, but this tool's description does not frame its place in that process.

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 for parameter meaning. It does provide short definitions: message is 'free-text objective' and inputs is 'optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which adds minimal value beyond the schema names and types. However, 'structured inputs' is vague and gives no examples, expected JSON shape, or connection to the domain agent action's contract. It compensates only partially.

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 states that it runs a Salesforce domain agent action named submit_for_approval, which is a specific verb and resource, but it never explains what the action does (e.g., which record is submitted, to whom, or what the approval workflow is). The name itself is descriptive, and the phrasing 'Run the salesforce domain agent action' is close to a restatement of the tool's name. It lacks the semantic weight needed to distinguish it from related approval tools like list_pending_approvals or get_approval_details.

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, no conditions, and no exclusions. The description only mentions that it routes through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is a technical execution detail rather than usage context. An agent is left to infer that this is a generic wrapper without any help choosing between it and the many approval-related sibling tools.

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