Configure Bot Escalation Routing

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

The description adds helpful behavioral detail: 'finds the latest BotVersion for the specified bot and adds the transfer dialog.' Annotations already indicate write/idempotent/non-destructive, so this adds operational context. However, it lists triggers (agentRequested, noResponse, fallback) that contradict the schema enum (agentRequested, unrecognized, maxErrorCount, custom), which could mislead about actual behavior.

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 organized with a clear purpose sentence, parameter list, and additional notes. However, the parameter list repeats schema information and contains inaccuracies, making it less concise in a quality sense. It is not overly verbose, but the misinformation reduces effectiveness.

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 main purpose, prerequisites, and side effect (updating latest BotVersion). However, the inaccurate parameter details and lack of mention of return/error behavior (no output schema) leave gaps. For a tool with this complexity, it is mostly complete but with significant caveats.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3, but the description introduces incorrect parameter semantics. It states 'Triggers: agentRequested, noResponse, fallback' and 'Actions: TransferToQueue', while the schema allows triggers 'unrecognized', 'maxErrorCount', 'custom' and actions 'TransferToQueue', 'EndChat', 'SetVariable'. This misleading info degrades the value added. It does correctly map botName and transferToQueueName to DeveloperName/Queue API name, but the errors outweigh that.

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's purpose: 'Configures an Einstein Bot to transfer conversations to a human agent queue when escalation conditions are met.' It names specific resources (BotVersion, Transfer dialog) and distinguishes from siblings like sf_create_einstein_bot which creates bots, not configures routing.

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 a clear use case ('when escalation conditions are met') and an explicit prerequisite: 'The bot must already exist (created via Setup or sf_create_agent).' It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but this is sufficient guidance for when to apply it.

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