create_sf_integration_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates code as strings (not deploying), lists the specific artifacts created, and mentions a step-by-step deployment instruction. This provides good behavioral insight, though side effects or additional constraints are not explicitly covered.

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 bullet list outlining five specific artifacts, a note about manual deployment, and a clear prerequisite. Every sentence is informative and earned its place, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple artifacts generated), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify the return value format. It explains what is generated but not how it is returned (e.g., a single string, multiple strings, or a structured object). This is a notable gap.

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?

Both parameters (plan, target_url) are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description reiterates the plan's origin and target_url's use in Named Credential, adding minimal new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 generates Salesforce-side code and configuration for a bidirectional integration, listing specific artifacts (Named Credential XML, Apex classes, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools for other platforms like Jira or ServiceNow.

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 notes the prerequisite of having an integration plan from design_integration and explains that the generated Apex code must be manually deployed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the sibling context implies it's for Salesforce.

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