sf_composite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it explains the default all_or_none=true behavior, rollback on failure, and how reference IDs can be interpolated into later sub-requests. It does not mention request limits, response structure, or error details, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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 compact and front-loaded; the opening sentence states purpose, then the example and atomic behavior follow. Every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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 complex composite API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the main invocation pattern and atomicity but omits operational constraints such as maximum sub-request count, allowed HTTP methods, response shape, and error behavior. It is usable but not fully complete for a two-parameter tool with high domain complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the requests array is explained via a concrete sub-request example with method, url, referenceId, and body, and all_or_none is defined along with its default. Some sub-request constraints and failure semantics remain implicit, but both parameters gain real meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Bundle multiple sub-requests into one atomic Salesforce API call.' The example and atomicity wording make it clear this is the composite API tool for combining operations, distinct from single-record CRUD and bulk siblings.

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 implies usage for multiple related Salesforce sub-requests that need to be executed atomically with reference chaining, but it never explicitly names sibling tools or states when not to use it, such as for large volumes that belong in bulk_load. An agent must infer the selection criteria.

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