Create Static Resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that content is 'deployed via the Metadata API' and that resources are served via a CDN URL, which is helpful context. However, it omits details about return values, behavior if the resource already exists, or what the openWorldHint=true annotation implies. Given that annotations cover safety, 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then concise context about what static resources are and how content is deployed. There is no redundant or filler wording; 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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns upon success or failure—it does not. It also does not address idempotent behavior for existing resources, which is relevant given the idempotentHint. The description covers the purpose and inputs well, but the lack of return-value/overwrite behavior leaves gaps.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all five parameters, including examples and defaults. The description's mention of 'Content is provided as a string' reinforces the content schema but adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is suitable.

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 opening sentence uses the explicit verb 'Creates' with the specific resource 'Static Resource' and lists content types (text/JSON/JS/CSS). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many other sf_create_* siblings by naming the target resource and its intended use.

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 the tool: 'ideal for JavaScript libraries, CSS stylesheets, JSON configuration, or any other file that needs to be served from Salesforce.' It gives a sense of usage scenarios but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, 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.