Create Custom Metadata Record

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

The description adds no context about idempotency despite the idempotentHint=true annotation, which is unusual for a create operation and needs explanation. It also doesn't clarify potential side effects (openWorldHint) or mention what happens on duplicate record names. Annotations provide only the basic safety profile, so the description should carry more weight.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise explanation and an example. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description should mention what the tool returns (e.g., success message or record ID) and any constraints like unique record names or required permissions. It covers purpose and example but misses these operational details.

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%, with all parameters well-described. The description reinforces the typeName example but does not add meaningful detail about label vs. recordName or how the values array maps to fields. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('record within an existing Custom Metadata Type'), with an example typeName. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool sf_create_custom_metadata_type by specifying the type must already exist.

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?

Provides clear context: records store configuration values for Apex, Flows, and formulas, indicating appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to sf_create_custom_metadata_type as an alternative for creating the type itself.

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