Create Entitlement Process

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds conceptual context but no additional behavioral details such as required permissions, side effects, or return behavior. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 first sentence is concise and informative, but the second paragraph lists parameters that duplicate the schema descriptions, adding redundancy. While not overly long, the parameter list does not earn its place given the comprehensive schema, making it less efficient than it could be.

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 creation tool with a detailed input schema, the description provides sufficient context about what an Entitlement Process is and its key fields. There is no output schema, so return values are not expected. Some optional parameters like exitCriteriaBooleanFilter are not mentioned, but the schema covers them, so overall completeness is solid.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description repeats some parameter names and adds minor clarifications (e.g., entryStartDateField as 'field that starts the SLA clock'), but this is marginal beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates an Entitlement Process (SLA policy)'. It explains the domain context of SLA enforcement and time-based milestones, which distinguishes it from similar create tools like sf_create_approval_process or sf_create_milestone.

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 provides clear context by explaining that entitlement processes automate SLA enforcement, indicating when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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