Create Custom Setting

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that Custom Settings are accessible via Apex without SOQL queries and that Hierarchy type supports overrides. It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and does not contradict them. It could mention permissions or idempotency impacts, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the action ('Creates a Custom Setting object'). Four sentences deliver essential context without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, covering use cases and type behavior.

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 schema richness (100% coverage) and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a creation tool: what it creates, when to use it, and key type behaviors. It does not explain the return value or error cases, but with no output schema, that is a minor gap. The description is fairly complete for the tool's purpose.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add specific parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'ending in __c' mirrors fullName pattern, 'Hierarchy or List type' mirrors settingType enum). It adds high-level context but does not strongly enhance schema semantics.

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 it creates a Custom Setting object with Hierarchy or List type, and explains the resource ('Custom Setting object ending in __c'). It also provides context about purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like sf_create_custom_metadata_type or sf_create_custom_object, though the terminology 'Custom Setting' is distinct.

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 on when to use it: 'Use for feature flags, thresholds, or configurable constants.' It also explains the behavior of hierarchy types. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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