create_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that it returns the created record ID on success and that it operates over REST. It does not disclose failure modes, required permissions, or how invalid recordJson is handled, so it adds only modest value over the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value. The third element (enumerating input keys) is mildly redundant with the schema but still short. No wasted prose overall.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description correctly notes the ID is returned. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements and error behavior, and no output schema exists to cover return semantics. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 restates the parameter keys (sObject, recordJson, targetOrg) already documented in the nested schema. Because the nested properties carry rich descriptions (field API names, default org behavior, sobject_list/sobject_describe hints), the description's summary is largely redundant rather than additive. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (create a new record in a Salesforce org) plus the implementation (REST API) and the success return value (the created record's ID). The create action is inherently distinguishable from siblings like update_record and delete_record by name, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. It never says when to call this versus update_record/query_records, or that a target org must be authenticated. The only procedural hints (run sobject_list/sobject_describe first) live in the schema, not the description.

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