compare_foundation_objects

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

Describes the core behavior (detecting missing records and field differences) and mentions the matching key (externalCode). However, missing disclosure on whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or side effects. With no annotations, the description should provide more transparency.

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 purpose. Efficient but could be more structured.

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?

Adequate for a comparison tool with output schema, but missing details on authentication setup, parameter defaults, and network requirements. The description could more fully cover the operation's context.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 43%, and the description adds no additional parameter information. The user and password parameters have no descriptions, and the default values are not explained. The description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 verb 'compare', the resource 'Foundation Objects', and specific actions: detecting missing records and field differences between two SF instances. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_employees and compare_picklists.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other compare tools or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context provided.

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