Create Matching Rule

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description doesn't need to restate mutation. It adds context about the creation dependency, but does not disclose permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate rule creation attempts. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate 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, all purposeful, front-loaded with the primary function, and includes the key usage prerequisite. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the tool title.

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 create tool with a fully documented schema and annotations, the description covers what the tool does, how to use it (fields and algorithms), and its prerequisite relationship to Duplicate Rules. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and this is typical for creation tools. The absence of permission/error details is compensated by the annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description adds a helpful list of matching algorithms (Exact, FirstName, etc.) that maps to the matchingMethod enum, but does not introduce new meaning for other parameters like blankValueBehavior.

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 Matching Rule used by Duplicate Rules to detect duplicate records, with a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('Matching Rule'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sf_create_duplicate_rule by explicitly naming the dependency.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: it must be created before a Duplicate Rule that references it, which is a useful ordering constraint. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the prerequisite note gives actionable guidance.

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