sf_create_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the create operation and does not mention return values, duplicate handling, field validation, permissions, or error behavior. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and contains no filler. It is appropriately brief, but the terseness means it relies on the schema for any additional meaning.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important details such as whether the created record ID is returned, what happens on validation failure, how to specify field values, and how this differs from sf_upsert_record. It is minimally sufficient for selecting the tool but not for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the bare parameter schema. It references 'object type' and 'field values,' which lightly echo the sobject and fields parameters but add no detail about API names, value formats, nested structures, or required-field behavior. The description does not meaningfully enrich the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new record of the given object type with the given field values'), making the core operation clear. It generally distinguishes itself from query/delete/update siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from upsert, which can also create records.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like sf_upsert_record or sf_update_record. There is no mention of prerequisites such as required fields, API names, or when a create should be preferred over an upsert. Usage is only implied by the tool name and action.

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