Create Aura Application

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the detail that it returns the .app file content, which is useful. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'scaffold' means—whether it creates files on disk or merely returns content—and does not address the openWorldHint annotation.

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 three concise sentences. It front-loads the primary action, then details the return value and parameters, and closes with context. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, return value, key parameters, and usage context, which is reasonably complete for a tool with six parameters and no output schema. Minor gaps remain, such as explaining the scaffold behavior and idempotency, but these are partially covered by annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the parameter names (access, extends, includes, bodyContent) but does not add deeper meaning beyond what the schema already documents, such as the PascalCase pattern or enum values.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: generating an Aura Application bundle scaffold and returning the .app file content. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like sf_create_aura_component and sf_create_aura_event by focusing specifically on the app-level bundle and the /c/AppName.app URL.

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 context that Aura Apps are standalone Lightning applications accessible via a URL, which helps infer when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer sf_create_lightning_app or LWC-based approaches.

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