Update Connected App OAuth Policies

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the context of updating via Metadata API, but does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, or potential broader side effects of a metadata deployment. It does not contradict annotations, but adds only modest value beyond them.

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 sentences: the first explains what it does, the second enumerates configurable options, and the third gives the practical use case. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it updates, what can be configured, and why to use it. It lacks explicit mention of permission requirements or whether the update is partial versus full replacement, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds helpful interpretation for refreshTokenPolicy ('infinite, specific duration, or expire on password change'), which clarifies the enum values. However, it does not elaborate on session timeout format or IP relaxation semantics beyond the schema's terse descriptions, so the added value is limited.

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 'Updates the OAuth policies on an existing Connected App in Salesforce via the Metadata API,' specifying a distinct verb and resource. It lists the configurable aspects (refresh token policy, single logout URL, session timeout, IP relaxation) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sf_create_connected_app by emphasizing 'existing' Connected Apps.

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: 'Use this to tighten or adjust security policies on deployed Connected Apps.' This implies it is for modifying existing apps post-deployment, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use the tool. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this over creation tools.

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