Create SObject Record

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral nuance that it creates a single record system-wide via the REST API, but does not disclose details like return value, error conditions, or side effects. The added value over annotations is modest, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical alternative in the second sentence. There is no redundancy or filler; 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?

For a simple two-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the key contextual points: the operation type, the transport, required inputs, and the bulk alternative. It does not mention the return value, but for an obvious create operation that is a minor gap; the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with both fields and objectApiName documented with examples. The description simply reiterates the need to provide an object API name and fields object, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is warranted when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 explicitly states the action ('Creates a single SObject record'), the resource ('via the Salesforce REST API'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting with bulk creation. The verb 'Creates' and the explicit 'single' vs. bulk distinction leave no ambiguity about what this tool does relative to other create-related tools.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: it is for creating a single record, and explicitly says 'For bulk creation (100+ records), use sf_bulk_import_records instead.' This names an alternative tool and specifies the boundary, matching the high standard of the TDQS 4.3 example.

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