Create Case Escalation Rule

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

The description's 'Creates' is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, and no contradiction exists with the idempotentHint. It adds useful context about escalation rule behavior (reassignment, notifications, business hours) but does not detail operational side effects like uniqueness requirements or validation errors, which are left to the annotations and schema.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose in the first words. The second sentence adds relevant behavioral context without redundant repetition.

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 complex nested schema (ruleEntries, escalationActions, criteriaItems), the description provides a useful high-level overview but does not explain how to structure rule entries or the relationship between formula and criteriaItems. However, the schema itself is fully self-documented, so the description is adequate though not enriched with examples.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, meeting the baseline for this dimension. The description's mention of 'business hours' and 'configurable start date' merely echoes schemas descriptions for businessHours and escalationStartDate, adding no new semantic value.

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 opens with 'Creates an Escalation Rule for Cases,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It further explains the rule's behavior (auto-escalating unclosed cases with reassignment and notifications), which distinguishes it from sibling rule-creation tools like assignment or workflow rules.

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 explains what escalation rules do, implying when to use this tool (when time-based case escalation is needed), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is no guidance such as 'use sf_create_assignment_rule for criteria-based assignment,' so usage context is only implied.

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