Create Platform Event

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by explaining Platform Events' pub/sub nature and clearly distinguishing PublishAfterCommit from PublishImmediately. 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the subsequent sentences add essential architectural and publish-behavior context. Every 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?

Given a rich schema and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, naming constraint, and key behavioral options. It lacks explicit mention of failure modes or return values, but those are not critical for a create tool with this schema richness.

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 has 100% description coverage, including detailed explanations for fullName pattern and publishBehavior. The description mostly restates these concepts (__e suffix, publish behavior), adding little new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 immediately identifies the verb and resource: 'Creates a Platform Event object (ending in __e)'. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like sf_create_platform_event_trigger by clarifying this is the event definition, not a trigger or custom object.

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 useful context about event-driven architecture and publish/subscribe behavior, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as custom objects or the related platform event trigger tool.

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