Create Sharing Rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful conceptual detail on how sharing rules operate (automatic sharing based on criteria or ownership) but does not disclose implementation-side behaviors such as permission requirements or what happens on duplicate rule names. It complements annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then concise context. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 schema fully documents parameters (8 params, nested objects, enums), the description provides essential conceptual backing and usage context. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and creation tools typically confirm success. Slight gap: lacks prerequisite details like object-level permissions, but overall sufficient for a tool of 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries detailed parameter info. The description enhances understanding of ruleType by explaining criteria-based vs ownership-based sharing, and clarifies sharedTo semantics. However, it doesn't add meaning to most other parameters beyond what schema already states.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Creates a Sharing Rule for a Salesforce object.' It clearly distinguishes from other creation tools by explaining the underlying concept (extending OWD) and the two types (criteria-based, ownership-based). No tautology, accurately reflects the tool's purpose.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'Use to give specific roles/groups access to records they wouldn't normally see based on OWD.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like permission sets or when not to use sharing rules, though the context implies it's for OWD-driven sharing needs.

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