Create External Client App (OAuth) — recommended over Connected App

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool deploys 'all 3 underlying metadata records' in one call, revealing atomicity. It also warns about an important limitation: 'the Consumer Key/Secret ... can still only be viewed once in Setup ... no Salesforce API exposes it.' This is critical behavioral context not conveyed by the annotations.

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 fairly long but front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear comparison, deployment detail, scope guidance, and a crucial limitation note. No sentence is redundant; each adds meaningful context. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it is on the longer side, though every part contributes.

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?

This is a complex creation tool with no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what happens and what is needed after creation. It covers the created record types, the key configuration options (client credentials flow, scopes), and the consumer secret retrieval limitation. This is sufficient for a model to invoke and reason about the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting which parameters matter most: 'enableClientCredentialsFlow + clientCredentialsFlowUser' are called out as fully configurable for ECA, and the 'Chatbot'/'SFApiPlatform' scopes are connected to a specific use case. This contextual grouping helps a model reason about parameter choices beyond the individual schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates an External Client App (ECA), Salesforce's newer replacement for Connected Apps, for OAuth authentication and server-to-server integrations.' It further distinguishes itself from the sibling sf_create_connected_app by explicitly recommending this tool over the alternative. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer this over sf_create_connected_app' with a concrete reason (full configurability of Client Credentials Flow including the run-as user via this tool, unlike the Setup-UI-only configuration on Connected Apps). Additionally, scope selection advice is given for Agent API usage: 'Use Chatbot and/or SFApiPlatform scopes.' This tells a model exactly when to use this tool and what parameters to choose.

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