Create Scratch Org

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

While annotations indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint false), the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: scratch orgs are temporary, configurable, and require an authorized Dev Hub. This discloses lifecycle and authorization needs not captured in 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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by brief context and a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff or redundancy—and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema and only four optional parameters, the description adequately covers prerequisites, purpose, and parameters. It doesn't mention what happens after creation (e.g., returned org ID) or how to use the alias later, but this is not required given the annotations and simplicity. Slightly more detail on post-creation behavior would make it complete.

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 input schema already has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an extra detail for definitionFile ('optional, defaults to CLI default'), which clarifies behavior beyond the schema. This bump merits a 4.

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 Salesforce scratch org using the SF CLI' with a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies that scratch orgs are temporary, configurable environments for development and testing, distinguishing them from other Salesforce environment creation tools like sf_create_sandbox.

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 context on when to use this tool: for temporary development/testing environments, and it explicitly mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires a Dev Hub org to be authorized.' However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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