sf_agent_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create,' implying a write operation, but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or post-creation state. This is minimal disclosure and leaves significant behavioral 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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. There is no fluff or redundancy—every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only the core purpose and input source. It omits important context such as parameter usage, required fields beyond the spec file, environment considerations, and expected outcomes. This is inadequate for safe and correct invocation in most scenarios.

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 schema lists 8 parameters with 0% coverage in the description. The description adds meaning only for 'specPath' via 'local agent spec file,' but does not explain 'name', 'apiName', 'confirm', 'preview', 'directory', 'targetOrg', or 'apiVersion'. This leaves agents to guess semantics from parameter names alone.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('an Agentforce agent') plus the source ('from a local agent spec file'). This specific verb+resource combination uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_agent_activate or sf_agent_deactivate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites, target org, or relationship to other agent lifecycle tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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