sf_upsert_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it merely restates the operation name. It fails to mention that this tool mutates Salesforce data, may require confirmation (implied by the 'confirm' parameter), depends on external ID lookup, or may have partial failure modes. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 that is concise in word count, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. For a tool with six parameters and no annotations, a one-line description without structure or additional context is not sufficient. It lacks front-loaded details about inputs, side effects, or usage scenarios.

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 complexity of an upsert operation (including external ID handling, confirmation, target org selection), and the absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information on return values, error handling, matching behavior, or any prerequisites, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 says nothing about any of the six parameters (objectName, externalIdField, records, confirm, directory, targetOrg), and the schema provides no descriptions (0% schema coverage). Thus the description does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and format of critical inputs like externalIdField and 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 'Upsert records in a Salesforce object' uses a specific verb ('upsert') and resource ('Salesforce object'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create, update, delete, and query. The term 'upsert' precisely conveys the create-or-update semantics without ambiguity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sf_create_records or sf_update_records. It does not mention that upsert is appropriate when an external ID field is available, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This absence of context leaves the agent without decision support.

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