Create External Object

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already convey the operation is a non-destructive write. The description adds context about external objects' capabilities (lookups, related lists, reports) but does not disclose behaviors such as what happens if the external data source is invalid, whether creation overwrites an existing object with the same name, or any permission prerequisites. This is sufficient given annotations but not rich.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: what it creates, what external objects are, and a prerequisite. No redundant or verbose content.

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 rich schema and no output schema, the description explains the core concept, naming convention, and prerequisite. It does not detail the optional 'fields' array or externalName behavior, but the schema covers these. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, with only minor gaps around return values and field semantics.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The description reinforces the requirement for an existing external data source and the __x naming convention, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's pattern and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Creates an External Object (ending in __x) linked to an External Data Source,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from regular object creation (sf_create_custom_object) by clarifying external objects hold data in an external system and from sf_create_external_data_source, which creates the source itself. The naming convention and relationship to data sources make the purpose 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to create an external object and already have an external data source, explicitly stating 'Requires an existing External Data Source.' It differentiates external objects from regular Salesforce objects by explaining their characteristics. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls 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.