Bulk Update Records (Bulk API 2.0)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation), idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is asynchronous, returns a job ID for status tracking, and requires each record to include the Salesforce Id. This helps the agent understand execution model and constraints.

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 concise and well-structured: a two-sentence purpose/behavior paragraph followed by parameter definitions. It avoids fluff and front-loads the most critical information (purpose, async nature, Id requirement, return type). Every sentence earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (a job ID). It covers purpose, parameters, and key constraints. It does not detail error handling or partial failure behavior, but for a bulk API tool with good annotations and schema, this is reasonably complete. Slight gap exists regarding how to track the job status, but that may be outside scope.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description's parameter lines mostly restate the schema but slightly enhance the records description by specifying 'plus fields to update', which is not explicit in the schema. This is a marginal addition, so 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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Updates multiple records of the same object type asynchronously using Salesforce Bulk API 2.0.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_update_record (singular) and sf_bulk_insert_records (insert) by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'Bulk API 2.0'. The key requirement of including the Salesforce Id field further clarifies the update semantics.

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 clear context that this tool is for asynchronous bulk updates of multiple records, which implies usage when a single-record update is insufficient. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., vs. bulk import or bulk insert). The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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