salesforce_update_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms that the operation mutates an existing record and vaguely mentions a 'success status', but it omits permissions, side effects, failure behavior, partial-update semantics, and irreversibility. It adds little beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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 well-structured with a clear opening line followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids filler and includes a useful example for the data parameter. The Returns line is somewhat generic but not wasteful.

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?

All required parameters are documented and the return is mentioned, so a basic invocation is possible. However, with no annotations and fifteen sibling tools, the description omits important context such as what happens when the record does not exist, permission requirements, and how this tool relates to upsert or bulk alternatives.

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 input schema has 0% property descriptions, but the description fully documents all three parameters: sobject with concrete examples, record_id as an 18-character Salesforce ID, and data as a key-value map with a clear example. This completely compensates for the schema gap and adds practical meaning.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('existing Salesforce record'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like salesforce_upsert_record or salesforce_bulk_update, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as salesforce_upsert_record for create-or-update behavior or salesforce_bulk_update for multiple records. 'Update an existing Salesforce record' merely restates the tool's purpose and offers no exclusions or selection criteria.

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