Create a custom object

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the endpoint, the automatic '__c' suffix derivation, the auto-created Name field behavior, and the feature-flag gate. It lacks details about permissions or failure modes, but otherwise gives strong behavioral context.

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 dense sentences convey the endpoint, naming rule, key side effect, and gating condition with zero filler. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 9-parameter metadata-create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral context: endpoint, naming derivation, auto-created Name field, and the required feature flag. Combined with high schema coverage, this is enough to invoke the tool correctly, though return-value details could still be an optional addition.

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 already 89%, and the description adds important relationships not visible in the schema: 'label' (or 'name') drives the API-name derivation, and 'nameFieldType: AutoNumber' suppresses the automatic Name field. This helps the agent understand how the parameters interact.

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 the operation ('Create a custom object'), the exact API resource ('CustomObject' via Tooling API), and the POST endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from record-level tools like sf_create_record and field-level tools like sf_create_custom_field.

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 gives a clear prerequisite (MC_NEXT_ALLOW_METADATA_CHANGES=true) and implies a metadata-creation context, but it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this over alternatives such as sf_create_record or sf_create_custom_field. An agent must infer routing from the tool name and the phrase 'custom object.'

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