Salesforce MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about required/optional parameters for different operations, validation rules (e.g., body must be valid Apex code, className must match), and that status information is returned. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions needed, or whether operations are reversible/destructive.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The examples and notes are well-organized and add necessary detail without redundancy. However, some information in the notes (e.g., 'operation must be either create or update') is already implied by the enum in the schema, making it slightly less efficient than ideal.

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 complexity of a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operations, parameters, and validation rules but lacks details on error responses, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what specific 'status information' is returned. For a mutation tool without structured safety hints, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by clarifying parameter semantics through examples and notes: it explains when apiVersion is optional (defaults to latest), distinguishes required parameters for create vs. update operations, and provides validation rules for body and className matching. This compensates well for the schema's basic 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's purpose with specific verbs ('Create or update') and resource ('Apex classes in Salesforce'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like salesforce_read_apex (read vs. write) and salesforce_write_apex_trigger (classes vs. triggers), making the scope unambiguous.

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 implied usage guidance through examples and notes (e.g., operation must be 'create' or 'update'), but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like salesforce_dml_records or salesforce_execute_anonymous. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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