Create SAML SSO Configuration

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful method context ('via the Metadata API') and enumerates supported identity types, which goes beyond the schema. It does not mention potential side effects such as overwriting an existing configuration, deployment latency, or API-related limitations, so transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 exactly three sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the primary action. Each sentence earns its place: purpose and method, required inputs, and supported identity types plus use case. There is no redundant or padded wording.

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?

All required parameters are identified in the description, and the use case is clear. Since there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It could mention asynchronous Metadata API behavior or permissions, but for a create operation the description provides sufficient context for selection and 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for all 10 parameters with individual descriptions. The description adds semantic value by grouping the key required inputs ('issuer URL, base64-encoded IdP certificate, login URL') and calling out 'user identity mapping settings,' which maps to identityType, identityLocation, and attributeName. This contextual grouping is helpful beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a SAML Single Sign-On (SSO) configuration in Salesforce via the Metadata API.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_auth_provider by naming the exact artifact. The inclusion of supported identity types further reinforces its unique scope.

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 explicitly states the intended use case: 'Used to enable SAML 2.0 federation with external identity providers.' This gives the agent clear context for when the tool should be called. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it falls short of full when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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