Create or Update Custom Label

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

The description adds the upsert behavior ('Creates or updates') and notes that labels support translation, which is mildly informative. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral details like name conflict resolution, permission requirements, or the fact that updates are based on fullName. Given the annotations already indicate idempotent write behavior, this is acceptable but not rich in additional context.

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 a compact, well-structured three sentences. It leads with the core action (create/update), then provides background on what Custom Labels are, and concludes with clear use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler, making it easy to scan.

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 relatively simple upsert tool with six parameters and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context to understand its purpose and typical usage. It lacks explicit mention of how updates are triggered (e.g., by fullName) or potential side effects, but the annotations cover the safety profile. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions translation support, which implicitly relates to the 'language' parameter, but doesn't elaborate on any specific parameter semantics. Thus the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the structured 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 'Creates or updates a Salesforce Custom Label' with a specific verb and resource. It further explains what Custom Labels are and provides concrete use cases ('internationalizable text strings, error messages, or UI labels'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sf_create_custom_field or sf_create_custom_object.

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 for internationalizable text strings, error messages, or UI labels'), providing clear context for appropriate usage. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using sf_translate_custom_label for translation tasks, which would have strengthened the guidance.

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