Create Workflow Field Update Action

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and the description confirms the creation behavior without contradicting these. It adds value by explaining the action sets a field and can be standalone or associated, which is not in the annotations. No major side effects are disclosed, but the core behavior is 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?

The description is reasonably concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a parameter list that repeats schema but is readable. It is front-loaded and does not contain filler. The parameter list is somewhat redundant, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core creation behavior, the operation types, and the optional association with rules/approvals. It doesn't mention prerequisites or return values, but these are not required given the schema and annotations. It feels complete enough for a create action.

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 lists each parameter with short explanations, but these largely mirror the schema descriptions (e.g., formula: 'Apex formula (for Formula operation)' vs schema's 'Formula expression (when operation=Formula)'). It adds minimal new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it 'Creates a standalone Workflow Field Update action' with specific behavior: sets a field to formula, literal, or null. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like sf_create_workflow_rule by focusing on the field update object itself and its standalone or associable nature.

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 specifies the tool can be used with Workflow Rules, Approval Process steps, or independently, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope is evident. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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