Create Embedded Service Deployment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one behavioral note: 'After creation, get the deployment code snippet from Setup → Embedded Service Deployments,' which tells users where to find the result. However, it does not disclose deeper behaviors like required permissions, potential side effects, or whether the deployment is immediately active.

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 well-structured: a clear opening sentence, then parameter details broken into sections, and a final note about retrieving the snippet. It is concise with no filler, though the channelType wording could be tightened to align with the schema.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and mentions post-creation steps, but with 11 parameters and no output schema, it leaves gaps: it does not explain the return value, prerequisites (e.g., needing to create a chat button or messaging channel first), or the full range of channelType enums. The conditional requirements are partially explained but could be more precise.

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 73%, and the description compensates for some undocumented parameters by explaining channelType choices (Chat vs Messaging), required parameters per type, and branding options. However, it does not describe the 'label' or 'description' parameters, and it introduces a potential mismatch: the schema enum for channelType is 'LiveAgent'/'MessagingChannel'/'EmbeddedMessaging' while the description says 'Chat'/'Messaging' and omits 'EmbeddedMessaging' entirely.

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 specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('Embedded Service deployment / EmbeddedServiceConfig'), and explains what it does: bundles a chat button or messaging channel into a web snippet. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_chat_button or sf_create_messaging_channel by focusing on the deployment configuration.

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 implies when to use the tool (when creating an Embedded Service deployment) and explains parameter requirements for Chat vs Messaging, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is helpful but not fully explicit about trade-offs versus using other tools.

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