sf_agent_preview_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites beyond an existing session, return values, error behavior, or any lifecycle considerations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It earns its place by stating the core action and target, though it is too sparse to fully support the tool's complexity.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It hints at a session prerequisite but lacks critical context about how to identify the session, what parameters are needed, or what the response will be.

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 adds no meaning beyond the schema property names. 'utterance' is simply repeated from the schema without elaboration, and the other seven parameters (e.g., sessionId, apiName, targetOrg) are entirely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('send') and clearly identifies the resource ('an utterance') and target ('an existing Agentforce preview session'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_agent_preview_start and sf_agent_preview_end, making its purpose immediately clear.

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 phrase 'existing preview session' implies the tool should be used after a session is started, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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