Create Connected App (OAuth)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true), the description offers no behavioral details such as whether existing apps are updated, what happens on duplicate fullName, permissions required, or where to find the generated consumer secret. With annotations present, the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the obvious 'creates'.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary action, the second establishes necessity, and the third lists key parameters and use cases. It is front-loaded, concise, and has no 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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides useful context about purpose and use cases but omits critical post-creation outcomes like how to obtain the consumer key/secret or whether the operation is synchronous vs asynchronous. It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps for a complex creation flow.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description mentions callback URLs, scopes, and contact email as key fields, reinforcing their importance but not adding new semantic meaning. It does not explain the relationship between parameters or auto-generated consumerKey, which is only mentioned in the schema.

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 a specific action ('Creates a Connected App in Salesforce') and resource, with a distinctive purpose of enabling OAuth authentication for external applications. It differentiates from siblings like sf_create_connected_app_oauth_policy by focusing on the app itself rather than policy configuration.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for any external system wanting to connect via OAuth 2.0) and lists supported application types (web, mobile, desktop, server-to-server). It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the use cases are well-defined.

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