sf_agent_activate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, impact of the 'confirm' parameter, or what happens if the agent is already active. For a mutating operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is concise with no redundant words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, which prevents a perfect score.

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 that this is a mutating tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It lacks details on return values, side effects, prerequisites, and the purpose of the confirm flag, making it insufficient for an agent to use safely and correctly.

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%, and the description only mentions apiName and version, leaving other parameters (confirm, directory, targetOrg, apiVersion) unexplained. It adds minimal semantic context by indicating that apiName is the identifier and version is optional, but does not compensate for the full parameter set.

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 specifies the action (activate), the resource (Agentforce agent), and the key identification method (API name and optional version). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sf_agent_deactivate and sf_agent_create, which serve different purposes.

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?

The description implies usage for activating an agent but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when an agent is already active or when to use deactivate. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are given, so the use case is only implied.

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