Create Agentforce Agent

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses that calling this tool alone produces a non-functional shell, that it is idempotent (re-running updates the agent), that plannerName is normally omitted on first call, and that Salesforce rejects underscores in Bot developer names. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) do not fully capture. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than typical but every sentence carries critical information. The numbered sequence (0–4) is logically organized, and the warnings about not stopping or asking for confirmation are all necessary for correct execution. No fluff or redundancy.

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 (7 params, part of a 5-step workflow, no output schema), the description covers the full workflow: prerequisites, exact order, dependencies between tools, idempotent re-run behavior, and the final completion condition. An agent has everything needed to execute the sequence correctly without additional queries.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds substantial semantic value: it clarifies agentName must have NO underscores (with max length), explains that persona is 'Deployed as the BotVersion <role>', and details the dual-purpose plannerName (omitted first, reused on second call to link the planner). This meaningfully enriches the schema definitions.

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 'Creates an Agentforce Agent (Einstein Copilot) shell in Salesforce' and explicitly marks it as 'STEP 1 OF A 5-STEP SEQUENCE', distinguishing it from sibling tools like sf_create_agent_action, sf_create_agent_topic, and sf_create_agent_planner. The verb-resource-scope combination is specific and 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?

Provides explicit step-by-step ordering (0–4), instructs the agent to create flows/Apex classes first, names the exact sibling tools to call next, and states when to stop ('DO NOT report completion until sf_create_agent_planner succeeds'). This is a model example of when-to-use and how-to-proceed guidance.

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