Create Field Service Service Territory

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

Given annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true), the description adds useful behavioral context about isActive affecting scheduling availability and operatingHoursName requiring an existing record. No contradictions with 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 concise and well-structured: an introductory sentence defines the tool, followed by brief, clear explanations of key parameters. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the key params (isActive, operatingHoursName, address), and notes a prerequisite (existing OperatingHours record). It does not explain the required 'label' parameter or return value, but this is reasonably complete given the annotations.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate. It explains isActive, operatingHoursName, and address fields, but does not describe the required 'label' parameter or individual address field purposes. It adds partial value beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 Service Territory for Field Service Lightning' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling 'sf_create_territory' by specifying 'Service Territory' and 'Field Service Lightning', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context on what territories are and explains how isActive and operatingHoursName affect usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like sf_create_territory, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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