Create Apex Email Service

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the precondition that the class must exist. But it does not disclose what happens after creation (e.g., activation, return value, or side effects), relying on the annotations for basic safety profile.

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?

Three concise sentences: one for purpose, one for use cases, and one for prerequisite. No redundant text; each 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 tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description provides purpose and use cases but does not explain the creation result or post-creation behavior. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks an expected outcome or return-value discussion.

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?

The input schema covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 Apex Email Service, specifying it works via an Apex class implementing Messaging.InboundEmailHandler. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_apex_class or sf_create_apex_trigger, 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?

It offers concrete use cases (support cases from emails, parsing content, triggering workflows) and a prerequisite (the Apex class must exist), which gives good context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so just short of a 5.

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