Pass the Salesforce AI Specialist Agentforce-Specialist Questions and answers with CertsForce

Universal Containers (UC) is implementing the Agentforce Sales Development Representative (SDR) Agent, a prebuilt AI agent designed to qualify leads and schedule meetings. Channel considerations are critical for deployment. Let’s evaluate the options based on official Salesforce documentation.

Option A: SDR Agent must be deployed in the Messaging channel.The Agentforce SDR Agent is designed to engage prospects in real-time conversations, primarily through the Messaging channel (e.g., Salesforce Messaging for in-app or web chat). This aligns with its purpose of qualifying leads interactively and scheduling meetings, as outlined in Agentforce for Sales documentation. While it may leverage email for follow-ups, its core deployment and interaction occur via Messaging, making this a key consideration UC must be aware of. This is the correct answer.

Option B: SDR Agent only works in the Email channel.The SDR Agent is not limited to email. While it can send emails (e.g., follow-ups after lead qualification), its primary function—real-time lead engagement—relies on Messaging. Stating it "only works in the Email channel" is inaccurate and contradicts its documented capabilities, making this incorrect.

Option C: SDR Agent must also be deployed on the company website.While the SDR Agent can be embedded on a company website via Messaging (e.g., as a chat widget), this is an implementation choice, not a mandatory requirement. The agent’s deployment is channel-specific (Messaging), and website integration is optional, not a "must." This option overstates the requirement, making it incorrect.

Why Option A is Correct:

The SDR Agent’s primary deployment in the Messaging channel is a documented consideration for its real-time lead qualification capabilities. UC must plan for this channel to ensure effective implementation, as per Salesforce guidelines.

The Agent-to-Agent (A2A) protocol in AgentForce is specifically designed to facilitate collaboration and coordination between multiple agents. It allows distinct agents — such as Service, Sales, or Employee Agents — to exchange structured messages, delegate tasks, and share context securely within the Salesforce ecosystem.

AgentForce documentation describes A2A as a collaborative communication framework, enabling agents to “handoff, request, and respond” to each other in complex workflows. This is useful when different agents specialize in separate domains (e.g., one handles billing inquiries, another manages account upgrades).

Option A is incorrect because invoking third-party APIs is handled via Tool Adapters or Action Integrations, not A2A communication. Option B is incorrect because tool access occurs through Tool Invocations, where the agent directly interacts with external services or APIs.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C – When agents need to collaborate, as A2A is purpose-built for inter-agent communication and cooperative task execution.

UC’s service team seeks to customize the standard case summary response provided by Agentforce. Let’s assess the options for tailoring this output.

Option A: Create a custom Record Summary prompt template for the Case object.In Prompt Builder, the standard Record Summary prompt template generates summaries for objects like Case. To customize it, the Agentforce Specialist can create a new custom prompt template, specifying the Case object as the source, and adjust the instructions (e.g., tone, fields included) to meet UC’s needs. This new template can then be invoked by an agent or flow, providing a tailored summary. This approach offers full control and aligns with Salesforce’s customization process, making it the correct answer.

Option B: Summarize the Case with a standard Agent action.Standard Agent actions (e.g., "Answer Questions") don’t specifically target case summarization—they’re broader in scope. There’s no out-of-the-box "Summarize Case" action that allows customization of the response format, making this insufficient and incorrect.

Option C: Customize the standard Record Summary template for the Case object.Standard prompt templates in Prompt Builder (e.g., Record Summary) are read-only and cannot be directly edited. Customization requires cloning or creating a new template, not modifying the standard one, making this incorrect.

Why Option A is Correct:

Creating a custom Record Summary prompt template allows full customization of the case summary, leveraging Prompt Builder’s flexibility, as per Salesforce best practices.

UC has set up an Agentforce Data Library with Knowledge articles, and while Prompt Builder retrieves the data correctly, the agent fails to do so in Agent Builder and Experience Cloud. Let’s troubleshoot the issue.

Option A: Create a new permission set that assigns "Manage Knowledge" and assign it to the Agentforce Service Agent User.The "Manage Knowledge" permission is for authoring and managing Knowledge articles, not for reading or retrieving them in an agent context. The Agentforce Service Agent User (a system user) needs read access to Knowledge, not management rights. This option is excessive and irrelevant to the grounding issue, making it incorrect.

Option B: Ensure the assigned User permission set includes access to the prompt template used to access the Knowledge articles.Prompt templates in Prompt Builder don’t require specific permissions beyond general Einstein Generative AI access. Since the Prompt Builder test works, the template and its grounding are accessible to the testing user. The issue lies with the agent’s runtime access, not the template itself, making this incorrect.

Option C: Ensure the Data Cloud User permission set has been assigned to the Agentforce Service Agent User.When Knowledge articles are grounded via an Agentforce Data Library, they are often ingested into Data Cloud for indexing and retrieval. The Agentforce Service Agent User, which runs the agent, needs the "Data Cloud User" permission set (or equivalent) to access Data Cloud resources, including the Data Library. If this permission is missing, the agent cannot retrieve Knowledge article data during runtime (e.g., in Agent Builder or Experience Cloud), even though Prompt Builder (running under a different user context) succeeds. This is a common setup oversight and aligns with the symptoms, making it the correct answer.

Why Option C is Correct:

The Agentforce Service Agent User’s lack of Data Cloud access explains the failure in agent-driven contexts while Prompt Builder (likely run by an admin with broader permissions) succeeds. Assigning the "Data Cloud User" permission set resolves this, per Salesforce documentation.

UC is using Prompt Builder with standard foundation models (e.g., via Atlas Reasoning Engine). Let’s assess best practices for prompt design.

Option A: Include multiple-choice questions within the prompt to test the LLM’s understanding of the context.Prompt templates are designed to generate responses, not to test the LLM with multiple-choice questions. This approach is impractical and not supported by Prompt Builder’s purpose, making it incorrect.

Option B: Ask it to role-play as a character in the prompt template to provide more context to the LLM.A key consideration in Prompt Builder is crafting clear, context-rich prompts. Instructing the LLM to adopt a role (e.g., “Act as a sales expert”) enhances context and tailors responses to UC’s needs, especially with standard models. This is a documented best practice for improving output relevance, making it the correct answer.

Option C: Train LLM with data using different writing styles including word choice, intensifiers, emojis, and punctuation.Standard foundation models in Agentforce are pretrained and not user-trainable. Prompt Builder users refine prompts, not the LLM itself, making this incorrect.

Why Option B is Correct:

Role-playing enhances context for standard models, a recommended technique in Prompt Builder for effective outputs, as per Salesforce guidelines.

The AgentForce Inter-Agent Communication and Security Configuration Guide specifies that when sensitive identity data (like a verified customer ID) must be shared between agents, the correct approach is to use the Agent API to initiate the downstream agent’s session. The verified data should be passed as a read-only context variable, ensuring persistence across sessions while preventing modification by the large language model (LLM).

This setup maintains data integrity and security compliance by isolating sensitive variables from the LLM’s reasoning layer. Context variables passed via the Agent API are immutable during runtime, ensuring they cannot be altered or exposed in agent-generated responses.

Option A adds unnecessary data persistence and complexity. Option B is insecure because conversation variables are exposed to the LLM context, risking unintended modification or leakage.

Therefore, the most secure and compliant configuration is Option C – Use the Agent API to pass verified IDs as read-only context variables between agents.

To meet Universal Containers' goal of improving efficiency and reducing agent handling time with AI-generated responses, the best approach is to enable Service Replies, Service AI Grounding, and Grounding with Knowledge.

Service Replies generates responses automatically.

Service AI Grounding ensures that the AI is using relevant case data.

Grounding with Knowledge ensures that responses are backed by Salesforce Knowledge articles, allowing agents to identify whether a response is coming from the LLM or Salesforce Knowledge.

Option C does not include Service Replies, which is necessary for generating AI responses.

Option A lacks the Grounding with Knowledge, which is essential for identifying response sources.

For more details, refer to Salesforce Service AI documentation on grounding and service replies.

In this scenario, the Agent capability that best helps the agent is its ability to execute tasks based on available actions and answer questions using data from Knowledge articles. Agent can assist the service agent by providing relevant Knowledge articles on canceling and rebooking flights, ensuring that the agent has access to the correct steps and procedures directly within the workflow.

This feature leverages the agent’s existing context (the travel itinerary) and provides actionable insights or next steps from the relevant Knowledge articles to help the agent quickly resolve the customer’s needs.

The other options are incorrect:

B refers to invoking a flow to create a Knowledge article, which is unrelated to the task of retrieving existing Knowledge articles.

C focuses on generating Knowledge articles, which is not the immediate need for this situation where the agent requires guidance on existing procedures.

To address the ineffectiveness of a prompt template reported by a customer, the Salesforce Agentforce Specialist should use the Prompt Builder Scorecard (Option B). This tool is explicitly designed to evaluate and monitor prompt templates against key criteria such as relevance, accuracy, safety, and grounding. By leveraging the scorecard, the specialist can systematically identify weaknesses in the template and make data-driven refinements. While monitoring and refining based on user feedback (Option A) is a general best practice, the Prompt Builder Scorecard is Salesforce’s recommended tool for structured evaluation, aligning with documented processes for maintaining prompt effectiveness. Changing the grounding object (Option C) without proper evaluation is reactive and does not address the root cause.

In Salesforce Agentforce, prompt templates are used to generate dynamic responses or field values by leveraging an LLM, often with grounding data from Salesforce records or external sources. The scenario describes a Field Generation prompt template that fails intermittently with token limit errors, indicating that the issue is tied to exceeding the LLM’s token capacity (e.g., input + output tokens). The random nature of these failures suggests variability in the token count across different records, which is directly addressed by Option B.

Prompt templates in Agentforce can be dynamic, meaning they pull in record-specific data (e.g., customer names, descriptions, or other fields) to generate output. Since the data varies by record—some records might have short text fields while others have lengthy ones—the total number of tokens (words, characters, or subword units processed by the LLM) fluctuates. When the token count exceeds the LLM’s limit (e.g., 4,096 tokens for some models), the process fails, but this only happens for records with higher token-generating data, explaining the randomness.

Option A: Switching to a "Flex" template type might sound plausible, but Salesforce documentation does not define "Flex" as a specific template type for handling token variability in this context (there are Flow-based templates, but they’re unrelated to token limits). This option is a distractor and not a verified solution.

Option C: The LLM’s token processing capacity is fixed per model (e.g., a set limit like 128,000 tokens for advanced models) and does not vary with user demand. Demand might affect performance or availability, but not the token limit itself.

Option B is the correct answer because it accurately identifies the dynamic nature of the prompt template as the root cause of variable token counts leading to random failures.