Create Lightning App

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating (readOnly=false) but non-destructive tool. The description adds behavioral context about the app structure and navigation choices but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or idempotency behavior beyond the idempotentHint annotation. No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then key choices, then usage statement. No redundant filler.

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?

While the tool has 10 parameters and two array-typed nested objects, the description only covers two parameters and the general use case. It omits mention of utilityItems, setupExperience, and the two boolean flags, which may be needed for complete invocation. The schema partially fills gaps but the description alone is incomplete.

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 covers 70% of parameters with descriptions. The description clarifies navItems with examples ('objects, home, reports, etc.') and explains navType, but much of this overlaps with schema descriptions. It does not add meaning for other parameters like utilityItems or setupExperience.

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 ('Creates') and clearly identifies the resource ('Lightning App in Salesforce') with distinctive details (branded navigation container, custom navigation bar, utility bar, logo). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool sf_create_custom_application, which could be confused as an alternative.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use when a user wants a custom app experience for a specific team or use case.' It does not list exclusions or name alternative tools, 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.