upsert-record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'auto-bulk switching', which is a notable behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., what happens on duplicate external IDs), required permissions, error handling, or the handling of fields not provided. The description adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 highly concise and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the key action and a notable feature.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very minimal. It does not explain the return value, behavior on errors, or the effect of the 'options' parameter. Given the complexity of upsert operations (e.g., handling partial failures, field-level security), the description provides insufficient context for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 covers 3 of 4 parameters with descriptions (sobjectType, externalIdField, recordData), providing a baseline clarity of 3. The description adds general context ('using external ID', 'auto-bulk switching') but does not elaborate on any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. For the 'options' parameter, the description offers no additional detail.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Upsert records using external ID with auto-bulk switching'. It uses a specific verb (upsert) and resource (records), and highlights the key method (external ID) and a notable feature (auto-bulk switching). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-record and update-record.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create-record or update-record. It mentions 'auto-bulk switching' but offers no context on when bulk behavior triggers or any prerequisites. There is no 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings.

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