Create Global Value Set (Shared Picklist)

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds a valuable behavioral trait: 'Any change to the Global Value Set is reflected in all fields that use it,' which goes beyond the annotations. It also reinforces the naming convention, though that is already in the schema.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loads the purpose, and uses clear, non-redundant language. Every sentence adds value: definition, behavioral implication, and usage guidance.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it creates, when to use it, and a key naming constraint. It does not explain the return value, but that is likely standard for create operations and not necessary for selection. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 schema already documents all parameters. The only parameter-specific note in the description is the fullName __gvs requirement, which is redundant with the schema pattern. No additional semantic value is added for the other parameters, justifying the baseline score.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Creates a Global Value Set' and clarifies it as a 'shared picklist definition'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like sf_create_custom_field or sf_add_picklist_values by emphasizing the multi-object sharing and synchronized behavior.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'Use when the same set of values... should be shared and kept in sync across multiple objects.' This clearly indicates applicability, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving a slight gap in exclusion guidance.

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