push_to_testing_center

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It reveals that the tool delegates to a specific squirex command and requires authentication, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing test specs) or the format of the response, leaving some ambiguity.

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 three tight sentences: the main action, the underlying command, and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value without fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it does, how it's implemented, and prerequisites. It doesn't explain return values, but for a push action this is less critical. Overall, it's adequately complete for an agent to invoke it.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (targetOrg and testFilePath). The description adds little beyond mentioning 'test spec' and 'target org' with a placeholder in the command, so it doesn't significantly augment the schema's meaning.

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's function: 'Push an Agentforce DX test spec to the Salesforce Testing Center.' It uses a specific verb (push) and identifies the resource (test spec, Testing Center), distinguishing it from siblings like run_tests or generate_dx_tests.

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?

It provides clear context for usage, including a prerequisite ('Requires an authenticated Salesforce org with `sf org login` and the Agentforce DX plugin') and the underlying command it delegates to. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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