Create Workflow Outbound Message

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and may have side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable context by specifying that the message 'sends a SOAP XML payload to an external endpoint' and is triggered by workflow rules, clarifying the asynchronous callout behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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: a two-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list. It front-loads the core functionality without extraneous content, though the parameter list duplicates schema information.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters (5 required) and no output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose, trigger context, and all parameters. It lacks explicit mention of return values or permission prerequisites, but for a create-metadata tool of moderate complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it.

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 input schema already documents all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, each with a meaningful description. The description's parameter list adds marginal value by noting integrationUser is 'optional username to authenticate the callout,' but this is largely redundant with schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 Workflow Outbound Message' with a specific purpose: 'sends a SOAP XML payload to an external endpoint when triggered by a Workflow Rule or Approval Process.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_workflow_rule or sf_create_email_alert.

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 use case: 'Use for real-time integration with external systems that need to be notified of record changes.' This gives the agent a condition for selection, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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