Create Workflow Rule

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context by labeling it 'legacy automation' and listing the types of actions it can trigger (field updates, email alerts, outbound messages, tasks), which helps an agent understand potential side effects beyond the annotation flags.

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, opening with a clear purpose sentence, then usage guidance, followed by a concise parameter list. It is somewhat long but every sentence carries useful information, and the parameter list is 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 create tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics thoroughly. It omits details like permission requirements or deployment behavior, but the annotations and schema cover most safety-critical aspects, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'formula or criteriaItems' are alternative ways to define the rule and by restating the triggerType options in plain language, which enhances the schema's one-line descriptions.

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 tool 'Creates a Workflow Rule (legacy automation)' and distinguishes it from Flows by saying it is for simple automations. It names the specific resource and action, which differentiates it from sibling tools like sf_create_flow and sf_create_validation_rule.

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 explicitly provides a when-to-use directive: 'Use for simple automations that don't require the power of Flows.' This names an alternative (Flows) and implies a boundary for when not to use it, which is sufficient for an agent to make a correct choice.

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