Run a Salesforce Composite request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the batching limit, the endpoint, and the '@{referenceId.field}' chaining behavior. However, it does not mention side effects of mutating subrequests, allOrNone rollback behavior, or failure/response semantics, which are significant for a tool that can execute arbitrary HTTP methods.

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?

Three sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the reference syntax explained. The phrase 'like Inspector's Composite usage' is a minor distraction for an AI agent, but the rest is tight and useful.

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 description is adequate for selection and basic invocation, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves gaps: it does not describe the composite response shape, per-subrequest status handling, or allOrNone failure behavior. Given the tool's complexity, more context would be needed for fully autonomous use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining the reference syntax '@{referenceId.field}' and the 'one API call' semantics, which are not fully captured by the schema's referenceId description. This helps an agent construct compositeRequest correctly.

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 names a specific verb ('Execute'), a concrete resource ('up to 25 subrequests in one API call (POST /composite)'), and the distinguishing constraint 'must stay within one API call.' This clearly separates it from single-request siblings like sf_rest_request or the CRUD tools.

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?

It states the intended context: 'multi-step operations that must stay within one API call.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to choose this over single-request tools.

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