update_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior beyond that: 'Updates specified fields on the record,' implying unspecified fields are untouched, which is a partial-merge semantic not stated in the annotations. It omits permission/error or return behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the input contract. No filler or redundancy, though the second sentence slightly overlaps the first.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the action is and what input it takes, but says nothing about required permissions, partial-update confirmation, or error/failure modes. Adequate but with clear 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 single top-level 'input' object is expanded into its sObject/recordId/recordJson/targetOrg keys with types, matching the nested schema, and marks targetOrg as optional. This largely restates what the nested schema already documents, adding no ID format, JSON syntax, or org-resolution detail beyond it.

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 (Update) and resource (existing Salesforce record) plus the transport (REST API), which cleanly separates it from create_record and delete_record. It stops short of naming siblings or scoping constraints, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Says it updates 'an existing record' but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. resolve the ID first, obtain an authenticated org), and no comparison to alternatives like create_record or sobject_list/describe. Usage is left almost entirely to inference.

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