Create Enterprise Territory Management Territory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline safety profile is known. The description adds the ETM enablement prerequisite, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as failure modes or uniqueness constraints. This is comparable to the calibration example that earned a 3.

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: one opening sentence, a prerequisite, and a focused parameter list. No redundant or fluff content. Key information is front-loaded, making 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite, purpose, and the most complex parameters (territoryType, parentTerritoryName). The remaining access-level parameters are sufficiently documented in the schema, so the description is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description reiterates several parameters (e.g., territoryName as API name) and gives examples for territoryType, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the action ('Creates a Territory') and the specific domain ('Enterprise Territory Management (ETM)'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_service_territory. It also adds domain context by explaining that territories define logical sales regions or account groupings.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires ETM to be enabled in the org') and context on what territories are used for, giving the model an indication of when to use this tool. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the ETM qualifier provides sufficient differentiation.

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