Create Compact Layout

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

The description explains what Compact Layouts do (define fields shown in highlights panels, mobile, related lists) and notes the 10-field limit, adding meaningful context. It does not contradict annotations, and the idempotent/read-only hints are consistent. It does not detail default-setting behavior, but the annotations already cover safety profile, so this is solid.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then add context/usage. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and strong sibling context, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'when' adequately. It could mention setAsDefault or behavior on existing layouts, but the schema covers parameters and the usage guidance is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already documents; it mentions the 10-field max but that is also in the schema. It does not compensate further, so a 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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Creates a Compact Layout for a Salesforce object.' It clearly defines what a Compact Layout is and where it appears, distinguishing it from other Salesforce metadata creation tools like page layouts or search layouts. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you want to surface the most important fields at a glance.' This provides clear context though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls 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.