Assign Skill to Service Agent

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the two-step behavior: 'Creates a ServiceResource for the user if one does not already exist, then creates a ServiceResourceSkill record.' It also clarifies the representation of ServiceResource. Given the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate mutation and idempotency, this additional detail provides valuable behavioral context without contradiction.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a bulleted parameter list, and a brief explanatory note on ServiceResource. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary fluff. Slightly redundant in repeating schema info, but remains efficient, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the data model (ServiceResource/ServiceResourceSkill), and parameter specifics. It does not detail return values or permissions, but given the simplicity and existing annotations, the description is sufficiently complete to guide an agent, earning a 4.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaning by specifying skillName as 'the API name (DeveloperName)', clarifying username as 'Salesforce username (e.g. agent@example.com) or user ID' (which is not in the schema), and reiterating skillLevel with range. These enrichments go beyond the schema's basic descriptions, earning a 4.

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 action: 'Assigns a Skill to a Salesforce user (service agent) with a skill level rating.' It specifies the resource (Skill, user/service agent) and the additional behavior of creating ServiceResource and ServiceResourceSkill records. This distinguishes it from siblings like sf_create_skill or sf_assign_presence_status, making the purpose 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?

The description gives context by mentioning 'Field Service / OmniChannel' and the creation of a ServiceResource, implying it is for service agents in those contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, meriting a middle score.

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