Create Queue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds domain context (queues are groups of users, records are worked on by any member) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permissions, side effects, or metadata deployment specifics. This is adequate given the 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value: what it does, what queues are, how they work, and when to use them. No wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 params, nested objects) and strong schema/annotation coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and typical use cases, though it omits details about return values or prerequisites (e.g., needing to create users first). These are minor gaps given the clarity of the core functionality.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details but its explanation of queue concepts (e.g., records, groups) provides indirect context for understanding parameters like supportedObjects and queueMembers. No additional semantic value is provided 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 clearly states 'Creates a Queue in Salesforce' with a specific verb and resource, and explains the purpose of queues. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on queue creation, and the context about record assignment helps clarify the tool's unique role.

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?

Provides clear use cases: 'Use for support teams, sales teams, or any scenario where multiple people share a pool of records to process.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives like sf_assign_queue_member, but the context is sufficiently clear for most scenarios.

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