open

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior annotations do not capture: that this launches a client-side browser, that path values are appended to the org domain, and that sourceFile routes into a metadata-specific Builder rather than a generic page.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds a distinct mode or constraint. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the observable outcome (a browser opens the org or a Builder). It covers the two primary invocation paths adequately; the only gap is that it does not clarify the return payload or whether the call blocks until the browser launches.

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 schema description coverage signal is 0% at the top level, so the description carries real weight — it explains the expected shape of path (the portion after 'https://mydomain.my.salesforce.com') and constrains sourceFile to ApexPage, FlexiPage, Flow, or Agent metadata. The remaining parameters (browser, targetOrg, privateMode, forceSystemBrowser) are only documented inside the schema, not the description.

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 verb and resource — opening a Salesforce org in a browser — and extends it to two concrete modes (a URL path, or a local metadata file in its Builder). It is clearly not a CRUD tool, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling open_record, which an agent must infer.

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?

It gives conditional usage for the two main modes ('To open a specific page, specify...', 'Use sourceFile to open...'), which is genuinely helpful routing. However, there is no statement of when NOT to use it, no mention of open_record as the alternative for record pages, and no prerequisites (e.g., an authenticated/default org) beyond what the schema implies.

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