Deploy Flow from Raw XML

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

Annotations already mark this as idempotent and non-read-only, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful context (Metadata API zip deploy, direct deployment) but omits potential side effects like overwriting an existing flow with the same API name or how deployment status is reported. This is acceptable 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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives usage guidance, and the third highlights a critical constraint. Each sentence earns its place.

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 complex deployment tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic workflow but doesn't mention what happens after deployment (e.g., synchronous vs async, how to check status, or handling failures). Given the sibling tool sf_check_deploy_status exists, a pointer would have been helpful. Adequate but with gaps.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces that flowXml must be a complete Flow metadata document, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deploys') and resource ('Salesforce Flow from raw XML via Metadata API zip deploy'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling sf_create_flow. It immediately clarifies the tool's unique value proposition.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'for complex flows that are too advanced for sf_create_flow's parameter-based builder.' It also names the alternative tool and explains the workflow (paste full XML, optionally activate). This provides clear decision guidance.

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