sf_package_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. Yet it only states the purpose and location ('in a Dev Hub org'), omitting details about side effects, required permissions, whether the package is created locally or remotely, or any irreversible actions taken.

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 that immediately conveys the core action and target context. It contains no filler or repetition, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and object.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely insufficient. It does not explain what the package creation entails, expected outputs, error conditions, prerequisites, or the significance of the Dev Hub requirement, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool 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?

The description provides no information about the 11 parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. Since the schema only lists parameter names and types, the description fails to explain the meaning, purpose, or relationships of parameters like 'name', 'path', 'packageType', or 'confirm'.

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 with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('second-generation Salesforce package'), and adds context ('in a Dev Hub org'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_package_install and sf_package_list by focusing on creation.

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 intended usage is implied: if you want to create a package, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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