Create External Data Source

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it outlines supported protocol types (OData 2.0/4.0, SimpleURL, Apex) and states the result ('appears as External Objects (__x) in Salesforce'). However, it does not disclose preconditions such as endpoint accessibility, authentication requirements, or failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the endpoint is unreachable). The idempotentHint=true annotation is not contradicted by the description, though the duplicate creation behavior is not covered. Given annotations cover basic read/write, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundant information. The key term 'Salesforce Connect' appears early, and the description is front-loaded with the verb and object. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, supported types, outcome. This is appropriately sized.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid overview. It covers the resource type, supported protocols, and the resulting artifact (External Objects). However, it omits details about return values, any parameter dependencies (e.g., authentication fields required for OData), and potential side effects like connectivity checks. These are not explained in the schema either, leaving a moderate gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a creation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping the 'type' parameter to real-world adapters (OData 2.0/4.0, SimpleURL, Apex) and clarifying the purpose of an endpoint. It also explains the ultimate effect (External Objects) which relates to the 'type' and 'endpoint' parameters. Since it goes beyond the schema's descriptions, a 4 is warranted.

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 External Data Source for Salesforce Connect', clearly stating the action and resource. It further specifies read-write access to external data and distinguishes this from related sibling tools like create_external_object by noting it appears as External Objects. This is specific and unambiguous.

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: 'enabling read-write access to data stored outside Salesforce without importing it' tells when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list includes create_remote_site_setting or create_external_object; the description's mention of Salesforce Connect and supported adapters gives enough context to select it over those. However, there are no explicit exclusions or 'use instead' statements, so a 4 is appropriate.

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