Create User Role Hierarchy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful domain context about how roles control record visibility, which goes beyond the annotations. Yet it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing users or permission requirements) or explain the meaning of access level parameters, leaving the behavioral picture incomplete.

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 well-structured with an initial concise summary followed by a parameter list. It is slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence ideal but every sentence adds value, particularly the roleName/label/parentRoleName clarifications. No redundant 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?

With 9 parameters and 2 required, the description covers only 4 of them, but the schema provides full descriptions for all. The tool has no output schema, so return value expectations are not addressed. The description explains the core purpose but omits important context about how access level parameters affect the hierarchy and what happens if parentRoleName does not exist, leaving the description adequate but with clear 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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for key parameters: roleName is 'API name (no spaces, used as DeveloperName)', label is 'display name shown in Setup', and parentRoleName can be 'omit for a top-level role'. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's terse descriptions, though access-level parameters receive no additional explanation.

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 new UserRole') and the resource ('in the Salesforce Role Hierarchy'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'sf_create_role_hierarchy' or 'sf_create_role', so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains when this tool is relevant by describing role hierarchy and OWD visibility, and it mentions the optional parentRoleName to place a role under an existing one. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied hierarchy context.

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