sf_update_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not explain whether the update overwrites all fields, how missing records are handled, whether field-level security applies, or what the response contains. The mutation impact is disclosed only at the most basic level.

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 precise sentence with no wasted words and the verb is front-loaded. It is not bloated or repetitive, though it omits explanatory detail that would improve usability. Within the conciseness dimension alone, it is strong.

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?

The tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to provide enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the result. It covers only the core purpose, leaving out parameter semantics, response shape, and update behavior. An agent would need additional documentation to use this confidently in a complex CRM workflow.

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 should compensate, but it only hints at 'field values' for the fields parameter. It does not explain that record_id is a Salesforce ID, that sobject must be an API object name, or that fields is a map of field names to values. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little meaning beyond them.

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 clear action ('Update') on a clear resource ('an existing record's field values'). It distinguishes from create/delete siblings by emphasizing 'existing record', but it does not explicitly contrast with upsert or query tools. The meaning is unambiguous for a basic update operation.

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 instead of sf_upsert_record, sf_create_record, or sf_query. There is no mention of prerequisites, record existence checks, or suitability relative to composite operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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