sf_generate_flow_definition

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Generate a ... definition file,' but does not explain side effects such as file creation, overwriting, or deployment. Parameters like 'confirm', 'overwrite', and 'deployAfterGenerate' hint at potentially destructive or confirmation-requiring actions, yet the description stays silent on these behaviors.

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 8-word sentence, which is brief but not appropriately sized for a tool with 13 parameters and no other documentation. It is under-specified, sacrificing clarity and guidance for brevity. Key information is omitted, making the tool harder to use correctly.

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 complexity (13 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what 'baseline' means, how the flow definition is generated, what parameters control the output, or any prerequisites. A tool with this many options needs significantly more context to be usable.

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 provides no parameter details. With 13 parameters, only one of which is required, the agent has no explanation of what 'label', 'processType', 'deployWait', 'ignoreConflicts', etc., mean or how they relate to generating a flow definition. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific action ('Generate') and resource ('Salesforce Flow metadata definition file'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like sf_generate_lwc_component by naming Flow metadata specifically. However, the term 'baseline' is ambiguous, leaving uncertainty about whether this is a template, a default skeleton, or something else.

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. Sibling tools like sf_deploy_metadata and sf_retrieve_metadata exist, and the description does not clarify whether this tool is a prerequisite, alternative, or complementary. The presence of deployment-related parameters (e.g., 'deployAfterGenerate') implies integration with deployment workflows, but no context is provided.

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