Link Routing Configuration to Queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds contextual behavior: it enables OmniChannel routing and clarifies the dependency on an existing queue and pre-created routing configuration. It does not contradict 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 three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose, then workflow, then parameter clarifications. It is concise and well-structured, though parameter details are slightly redundant with the schema.

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 simple linking operation, the description covers the prerequisite (create routing config first), the target (existing queue), and the outcome (routed work items). No output schema exists, so return values are not needed. It lacks error conditions but is adequate for this complexity.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, and the description reinforces meaning by clarifying queueDeveloperName is the DeveloperName (not label) and routingConfigName is the API name. This adds valuable semantics beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Associates a Routing Configuration with an existing Queue' with a specific verb and both resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sf_create_routing_configuration, which creates the configuration rather than linking it.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'After creating a Routing Configuration (sf_create_routing_configuration), use this tool to link it.' It names the prerequisite tool and explains the outcome, but does not state when not to use it or contrast with other linking tools.

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