Create OmniChannel Presence Configuration

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

The description adds a behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the configuration must be assigned via Profile or Permission Set after creation, implying the tool does not auto-assign. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, and the description does not contradict them. This extra context is valuable for setting expectations.

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 well-structured: a clear first sentence states the purpose, followed by concise bullet definitions for three key parameters, and a final operational note. Every line earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 6-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, key parameters, and the post-creation assignment step. It does not mention the optional per-channel capacity object in serviceChannels, but the schema provides that detail. Overall, the description is reasonably complete for successful invocation.

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 only 33%, so the description compensates by explaining capacity, serviceChannels, and allowAgentsToChangeStatus. However, it does not explain label or description parameters, leaving some gap. The provided explanations add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, but the coverage is not exhaustive.

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 the tool creates a Presence Configuration (PresenceUserConfig), which controls service channels and agent work capacity. It uses the specific verb 'Creates' and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from related siblings like sf_create_presence_status and sf_assign_presence_status.

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 operational context: it explains what the configuration does (channel handling and capacity) and notes that assignment is done separately via Profile or Permission Set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context sufficiently implies when this tool would be relevant.

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