Create Lightning Application

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the outcome that the app appears in the App Launcher and notes the use of the Metadata API. This adds some context but does not disclose deeper behaviors like what happens if an app with the same name already exists, which is relevant given the idempotent hint.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second lists supported types, third summarizes key parameters and outcome. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for most use cases, covering purpose, key options, and post-creation outcome. It does not mention return values or behavior on conflicts, but the rich schema and annotations offset some of that need. A small gap exists in not clarifying the distinction from the sibling sf_create_lightning_app.

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% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats some parameter concepts (tabs, form factor, utility bar) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. It adds minimal extra value here.

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 'Creates a Lightning Application (App) in the Salesforce org via the Metadata API,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the Metadata API and the specific configuration options (tabs, form factor, utility bar), which clearly differentiates it from other create tools.

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 gives clear context by listing supported navigation types and configurable components, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., sf_create_lightning_app), so it falls short of providing explicit usage guidance.

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