Agentforce-Specialist Salesforce Certified Agentforce Specialist (AI-201) Questions and Answers

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

The documentation “Find Similar Opportunities” states: “Matched opportunities have a status of Closed Won, a close date within 12 months of today, and aren’t deleted.” This clearly aligns with option B. The other options (A or C) do not match the published criteria (status of Closed Won within 12 months). Therefore option B is correct.

Record Snapshots grounding in Agentforce prompt templates allows the AI to access and use data from a specific Salesforce record (e.g., fields and related records) to generate contextually relevant responses. However, there are specific limitations to consider. Let’s analyze each option based on official documentation.

Option A: Activities such as tasks and events are excluded.According to Salesforce Agentforce documentation, when grounding a prompt template with Record Snapshots, the data included is limited to the record’s fields and certain related objects accessible via Data Cloud or direct Salesforce relationships. Activities (tasks and events) are not included in the snapshot because they are stored in a separate Activity object hierarchy and are not directly part of the primary record’s data structure. This is a key consideration for an Agentforce Specialist, as it means the AI won’t have visibility into task or event details unless explicitly provided through other grounding methods (e.g., custom queries). This limitation is accurate and critical to understand.

Option B: Empty data, such as fields without values or sections without limits, is filtered out.Record Snapshots include all accessible fields on the record, regardless of whether they contain values. Salesforce documentation does not indicate that empty fields are automatically filtered out when grounding a prompt template. The Atlas Reasoning Engine processes the full snapshot, and empty fields are simply treated as having no data rather than being excluded. The phrase "sections without limits" is unclear but likely a typo or misinterpretation; it doesn’t align with any known Agentforce behavior. This option is incorrect.

Option C: Email addresses associated with the object are excluded.There’s no specific exclusion of email addresses in Record Snapshots grounding. If an email field (e.g., Contact.Email or a custom email field) is part of the record and accessible to the running user, it is included in the snapshot. Salesforce documentation does not list email addresses as a restricted data type in this context, making this option incorrect.

Why Option A is Correct:

The exclusion of activities (tasks and events) is a documented limitation of Record Snapshots grounding in Agentforce. This ensures specialists design prompts with awareness that activity-related context must be sourced differently (e.g., via Data Cloud or custom logic) if needed. Options B and C do not reflect actual Agentforce behavior per official sources.

Context of the Question

Universal Containers (UC) has a strict change management process that requires all possible configuration be completed in a sandbox and deployed to Production.

Einstein Generative AI is already enabled in Production, and the “Einstein Work Summaries” permission set is already available in Production.

The Agentforce Specialist needs to configure Work Summaries for Enhanced Messaging in the sandbox.

What Can Actually Be Deployed from Sandbox to Production?

Custom Fields: Metadata that is easily created in sandbox and then deployed.

Quick Actions: Also metadata-based and can be deployed from sandbox to production.

Layout Components: Page layout changes (such as adding the Wrap Up component) can be added to a change set or deployment package.

Why Option C is Correct

No Need to Turn on Einstein in Sandbox for Deployment: Einstein Generative AI is already enabled in Production; turning it on in the sandbox is typically a manual step if you want to test, but that step itself is not “deployable” in the sense of metadata.

Permission Set Assignments (as in Option A) are not deployable metadata. You can deploy the Permission Set itself but not the specific user assignments. Since the question specifically asks “Which other configuration steps should be taken in the sandbox that can be deployed to the production org?”, user assignment is not one of them.

Why Not Option A or B?

Option A: Mentions creating permission set assignments for agents. This cannot be directly deployed from sandbox to Production, as permission set assignments are user-specific and considered “data,” not metadata.

Option B: Mentions “Turn on Einstein.” But Einstein Generative AI is already enabled in Production. Additionally, “Turning on Einstein” is typically an org-level setting, not a deployable metadata item.

ConclusionThe main deployable items you can reliably create and test in a sandbox, and then migrate to Production, are:

Custom Fields (Issue, Resolution, Summary).

A Quick Action that updates those fields.

Page Layout Change to include the Wrap Up component.

Therefore, Option C is correct and focuses on actions that are truly deployable as metadata from a sandbox to Production.

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist References & Documents

Salesforce Trailhead: Work Summaries with Einstein GPTProvides an overview of how to configure Work Summaries, including the need for custom fields, quick actions, and UI components.

Salesforce Documentation: Deploying Metadata Between OrgsExplains what can and cannot be deployed via change sets (e.g., custom fields, page layouts, quick actions vs. user permission set assignments).

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist Study GuideOutlines which Einstein Generative AI and Work Summaries configurations are deployable as metadata.

In Salesforce prompt templates, instructions that guide how the Large Language Model (LLM) should generate content (in this case, personalized emails) can be included by surrounding the instruction text with triple quotes ("""). This formatting ensures that the LLM adheres to the specific instructions while generating the email content.

The use of triple quotes allows the AI to understand that the enclosed text is a directive for how to approach the task, such as limiting the content to associated opportunity information or encouraging a specific action from the recipient.

Refer to Salesforce Prompt Builder documentation for detailed instructions on how to structure prompts for generative AI.

Why is "Sales rep users are missing the Use SDR Agent permission set" the correct answer?

If sales reps are unable to find the Agentforce Sales Development Representative (SDR) Agent, the most likely cause is missing permissions. The "Use SDR Agent" permission set is required for users to access and interact with the SDR Agent in Agentforce.

Key Considerations for This Issue:

Permission Set Restriction

Users must have the "Use SDR Agent" permission set to access Agentforce SDR in their Salesforce environment.

If they lack this permission, the SDR Agent will not appear in their interface.

Agentforce Role-Based Access Control

Agentforce assigns specific permissions based on user roles.

Sales reps require explicit permission to access the SDR Agent.

Fixing the Issue

The Salesforce Admin should assign the "Use SDR Agent" permission set to all relevant sales reps.

This is done in Setup → Permission Sets → Assign to Users.

Why Not the Other Options?

❌ A. Sales rep users' profiles are missing the Allow SDR Agent permission.

Incorrect because "Allow SDR Agent" is not a standard permission setting in Agentforce.

Permission is granted via permission sets, not profile-level settings.

❌ B. Sales rep users do not have access to the SDR Agent object.

Incorrect because there is no separate "SDR Agent object" in Salesforce.

SDR Agents are AI-driven features, not standard CRM objects that require object-level access.

Agentforce Specialist References

Salesforce AI Specialist Material confirms that users require specific permission sets to access Agentforce SDR Agents​.

Salesforce Instructions for Certification highlight the role of permission sets in controlling Agentforce access​.

According to the Salesforce Prompt Builder Best Practices Guide, an effective prompt must include Role, Task, Context, Constraints, and Format clearly defined — a structure known as the RTCCF model. The documentation explains: “Prompts should specify the assistant’s role, define a clear task, include context and constraints, and provide output format instructions to ensure predictable and high-quality responses.”

Option A follows this framework precisely. It defines:

Role: The assistant’s identity (“experienced support agent”).

Task: Summarizing case notes.

Context: Customer issue, troubleshooting steps, next actions.

Constraints: Limit of 5 sentences, plain language, include “No next action required” if applicable.

Format: Numbered sentences for clarity.

Options B and C omit critical prompt design elements such as strict constraints or output formatting and therefore do not align with Salesforce’s prompt design standard.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

Salesforce Prompt Builder Guide: “Prompt Structure Using RTCCF Model”

AgentForce Prompt Template Design Guide: “Best Practices for Summarization Prompts”

Salesforce AI Prompt Engineering Study Guide

As per the AgentForce Deployment and Lifecycle Management Guide, AgentForce agents, including their topics, actions, and prompt templates, can be deployed from sandbox to production using Salesforce change sets.

Administrators should create an outbound change set in the sandbox environment that includes all relevant components (Agent definition, prompt templates, topic configurations, flows, and permissions) and then upload it to production for validation and deployment. This process ensures consistency, auditability, and proper dependency tracking between environments.

Option A is incorrect because manual recreation is inefficient and error-prone. Option B is not recommended, as JSON export/import is for development backups and advanced metadata operations, not for standard deployments.

Hence, the correct approach per AgentForce’s best practices is Option C – Create an outbound change set and deploy it to production.

According to the AgentForce and Einstein Studio Integration Guide, when a business requires custom ranking or filtering logic (such as by product line and recency), the correct solution is to build a custom retriever in Einstein Studio. The documentation describes: “Custom retrievers in Einstein Studio enable configuration of metadata filters (e.g., product line) and custom ranking functions such as recency or relevance scoring. This allows fine-tuned control over retrieval beyond the default retriever’s capabilities.”

Option A, the default retriever, provides general ranking and does not natively apply custom filters. Option C, applying semantic embeddings with default filters, is useful for general search optimization but lacks custom ranking logic.

Therefore, Option B aligns with Salesforce’s prescribed method for fine-tuned retrieval control in enterprise use cases requiring metadata-based and recency ranking.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Einstein Studio Guide: “Building Custom Retrievers with Metadata and Ranking”

AgentForce Data Cloud Configuration Notes: “Filtering and Ranking in Custom Retrieval”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Advanced Retrieval Customization in Einstein Studio”

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

The Prompt Builder documentation shows that prompt templates can be invoked from Flows using a Flow Action. It describes “Call a prompt template from Flow” and “Flow Core Action: Prompt Template Actions.” While Invocable Apex (option A) could technically trigger templates, the standard, declarative, recommended approach is a Flow Action (option C). “Einstein for Flow” (option B) is not the standard naming used in this context. So option C is correct.

UC is deploying an Agentforce Service Agent with multiple topics and actions to production. Let’s assess deployment considerations.

Option A: Deploy agent components without a test run in staging, relying on production data for reliable results. Sandbox configuration alone ensures seamless production deployment.Skipping staging tests is risky and against best practices. Sandbox configuration doesn’t guarantee production success without validation, making this incorrect.

Option B: Ensure all dependencies are included, Apex classes meet 75% test coverage, and configuration settings are aligned with production. Plan for version management and post-deployment activation.This is a comprehensive approach: dependencies (e.g., flows, Apex) must be deployed, Apex requires 75% coverage, and production settings (e.g., permissions, channels) must align. Version management tracks changes, and post-deployment activation ensures controlled rollout. This aligns with Salesforce deployment best practices for Agentforce, making it the correct answer.

Option C: Deploy flows or Apex after agents, topics, and Agent Actions to avoid deployment failures and potential production agent issues requiring complete redeployment.Deploying components separately risks failures (e.g., actions needing flows failing). All components should deploy together for consistency, making this incorrect.

Why Option B is Correct:

Option B covers all critical deployment considerations for a robust Agentforce rollout, as per Salesforce guidelines.

Why is "Identifying agent topics and actions to respond to user utterances" the correct answer?

In Agentforce, the reasoning engine plays a critical role in interpreting user queries and determining the appropriate agent response.

Key Functions of the Reasoning Engine in Agentforce:

Analyzing User Intent

The reasoning engine interprets the meaning behind natural language user inputs.

It maps user utterances to predefined topics to determine the correct AI-generated response.

Selecting the Appropriate Agent Action

The engine evaluates available actions and selects the best response based on the detected topic.

For example, if a user asks, "What is my current account balance?", the reasoning engine:

Identifies the topic: "Account Information"

Chooses the correct action: "Retrieve account balance"

Executes the action and returns the response

Ensuring AI Accuracy and Context Awareness

The reasoning engine grounds AI-generated responses in relevant Salesforce data, ensuring accurate outputs.

Why Not the Other Options?

❌ B. Offering real-time natural language response during conversations.

Incorrect because real-time natural language processing (NLP) is handled by the large language model (LLM), not the reasoning engine.

The reasoning engine focuses on action selection, not linguistic processing.

❌ C. Generating record queries based on conversation history.

Incorrect because query generation is handled by Copilot Actions (e.g., Query Records), not the reasoning engine.

The reasoning engine decides which query should be run, but does not generate queries itself.

Agentforce Specialist References

Salesforce AI Specialist Material explains that the reasoning engine identifies topics and selects agent actions​.

Salesforce Instructions for the Certification confirm that the reasoning engine determines AI workflow execution​.

Context of the QuestionUniversal Containers (UC) wants to automatically populate the Description field on the Account object. The AI-driven solution must generate textual data and write it directly into a field.

Field Generation Prompt Template

Primary Use Case: A Field Generation prompt template is specifically designed to create or fill in fields on a record with AI-generated text.

Auto-population: By configuring a Field Generation prompt template, admins can define the instructions, data inputs, and desired output for the AI. The resulting text then populates the specified field, such as the Account Description.

Why Not Flex or Sales Email Prompt Templates?

Flex Prompt Template: Used to combine or manipulate data across objects, merges, or references from multiple sources in more advanced, flexible prompts. Typically not the go-to for straightforward text generation on a single field.

Sales Email Prompt Template: Focused on drafting or summarizing emails for sales reps (like crafting outreach or follow-up messages). This template is not specifically built to populate a field on a record.

ConclusionFor automatically populating the Description field with AI-generated content, the Field Generation prompt template (Option A) is the correct choice.

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist References & Documents

Salesforce Documentation: Prompt Template TypesExplains various template types (Field Generation, Flex, Email, etc.) and their typical use cases.

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist Study GuideHighlights Field Generation prompt templates for populating or updating record fields with AI-generated text.

UC’s support assistant uses a Data Cloud search index for grounding, but irrelevant results from outdated product versions are an issue. Let’s evaluate the options.

Option A: Modify the search index to only store documents from the last year and remove older records.While limiting the index to recent documents could reduce irrelevant results, this requires ongoing maintenance (e.g., purging older data) and risks losing valuable historical context from past resolutions. It’s a blunt approach that doesn’t leverage Data Cloud’s filtering capabilities, making it less optimal and incorrect.

Option B: Create a custom retriever in Einstein Studio, and apply filters for publication date and product line.There’s no "Einstein Studio" in Salesforce—possibly a typo for Agentforce Studio or Data Cloud. Custom retrievers can be created in Data Cloud, but this requires advanced configuration (e.g., custom code or Data Cloud APIs) beyond standard Agentforce setup. This is overcomplicated compared to native options, making it incorrect.

Option C: Use the default retriever, as it already searches the entire search index and provides broad coverage.This option seems misaligned at first glance, as the default retriever’s broad coverage is causing the issue. However, the intent (based on typical Salesforce question patterns) likely implies using the default retriever with additional configuration. In Data Cloud, the default retriever searches the index, but you can apply filters (e.g., publication date, relevance) via the Data Library or prompt grounding settings to prioritize current documents. Since the question lacks an explicit filtering option, this is interpreted as the closest correct choice with refinement assumed, making it the answer by elimination and context.

Why Option C is Correct (with Caveat):

The default retriever, when paired with filters (assumed intent), allows UC to refine results without custom development. Salesforce documentation emphasizes refining retriever scope over rebuilding indexes, though the question’s phrasing is suboptimal. Option C is selected as the least incorrect, assuming filter application.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

According to the documentation of agentic patterns and use cases for the AgentForce platform, there are specific agent types aligned to roles—sales, service, employee support, etc. Since the requirement is for sales staff (i.e., a sales context) and the tasks involve scheduling daily tasks and providing explanations for product pricing and deals, the appropriate agent type is a Sales Agent. A Service Agent is customer‑service oriented; an Employee Agent is internal non‑sales worker support. So option C (Sales Agent) is the best fit.

The AgentForce Developer Integration Guide specifies that Flex prompt templates are the correct type for custom or embedded integrations, such as invoking a prompt from a Lightning Web Component (LWC).

Flex templates are designed for general-purpose use cases and can be called programmatically via Apex, Flow, or LWC APIs. They offer flexible input and output structures, allowing developers to integrate AgentForce reasoning into custom applications and UI components.

Option A, Field Generation, is used to populate or update Salesforce fields, not for external invocation. Option B, Sales Email, is specific to generating pre-formatted communication messages and cannot be invoked directly from LWCs.

Therefore, the correct template type for a prompt used within a Lightning Web Component is Option C – Flex, as it is purpose-built for dynamic, reusable, and programmatic use cases.

In the AgentForce Flex Prompt Design Guide, the recommended best practice for Flex prompt templates is to ensure that the large language model (LLM) is provided with clear contextual information and a defined role (e.g., sales rep, support agent, concierge). Flex prompts are intentionally open-ended and adaptable, enabling them to handle dynamic and conversational use cases, provided they are guided with sufficient context and role clarity.

By setting a role and including detailed contextual cues, the LLM can tailor tone, content, and reasoning appropriately while maintaining response accuracy.

Option B describes a data-grounded Record Summary use case, not a Flex prompt. Option C, involving retrievers, is for grounding responses to external or indexed data — but Flex prompts typically handle free-form or reasoning-driven tasks, not retrieval-based ones.

Thus, following AgentForce’s official design standards, the correct best practice is Option A – Provide contextual information and assign a role to the LLM for optimal performance and consistency.

Record Snapshots in Salesforce Prompt Builder leverage the data visible on the user's page layout for an object to ground the prompt. This means that the fields and related lists that are configured on the page layout directly influence the data included in the snapshot.

Agentforce Sales Agent is designed to let sales teams perform tasks via natural language commands, leveraging Salesforce data while adhering to policies. For example, agents can ask the AI to "update the opportunity stage to Closed Won" or "generate a quote," with the system enforcing validations and data security. This use case aligns with Salesforce’s vision of conversational AI streamlining workflows without compromising compliance.

Step-by-step guides (B) are typically handled by tools like Dynamic Forms or Guided Selling, not Agentforce.

Logging messages/emails (C) is managed by Email-to-Case or Service Cloud, not a sales-specific AI agent.

Universal Containers (UC) requires a solution with a custom UX for users to input a sales order number, followed by invoking a custom prompt template to generate and display a summary. Let’s evaluate each option based on this requirement and Salesforce Agentforce capabilities.

Option A: Create an autolaunched flow and invoke the prompt template using the standard "Prompt Template" flow action.An autolaunched flow is a background process that runs without user interaction, triggered by events like record updates or platform events. While it can invoke a prompt template using the "Prompt Template" flow action (available in Flow Builder to integrate Agentforce prompts), it lacks a user interface. Since UC explicitly needs a custom UX for users to enter a sales order number, an autolaunched flow cannot meet this requirement, as it doesn’t provide a way for users to input data directly.

Option B: Create a template-triggered prompt flow and invoke the prompt template using the standard "Prompt Template" flow action.There’s no such thing as a "template-triggered prompt flow" in Salesforce terminology. This appears to be a misnomer or typo in the original question. Prompt templates in Agentforce are reusable configurations that define how an AI processes input data, but they are not a type of flow. Flows (like autolaunched or screen flows) can invoke prompt templates, but "template-triggered" is not a recognized flow type in Salesforce documentation. This option is invalid due to its inaccurate framing.

Option C: Create a screen flow to collect the sales order number and invoke the prompt template using the standard "Prompt Template" flow action.A screen flow provides a customizable user interface within Salesforce, allowing users to input data (e.g., a sales order number) via input fields. The "Prompt Template" flow action, available in Flow Builder, enables integration with Agentforce by passing user input (the sales order number) to a custom prompt template. The prompt template can then query related data (e.g., sales order header and details) and generate a summary, which can be displayed back to the user on a subsequent screen. This solution meets UC’s need for a custom UX and seamless integration with Agentforce prompts, making it the best fit.

Why Option C is Correct:

Screen flows are ideal for scenarios requiring user interaction and custom interfaces, as outlined in Salesforce Flow documentation. The "Prompt Template" flow action enables Agentforce’s AI capabilities within the flow, allowing UC to collect the sales order number, process it via a prompt template, and display the result—all within a single, user-friendly solution. This aligns with Agentforce best practices for integrating AI-driven summaries into user workflows.

The Field Generation prompt template type is specifically designed to enable generative AI within the context of a Salesforce record field. To expose this functionality to an end-user, the Agentforce Specialist must associate the template with the form field on the Lightning page (B). This is accomplished using the Lightning App Builder:

The Agentforce Specialist first creates a custom field (often a Long Text Area or Rich Text Area) on the desired object to store the AI-generated output.

In the Lightning App Builder for the object's Record Page, the Specialist selects the field component.

In the properties panel for that field component, there is a setting (often a dropdown) to select an active Field Generation Prompt Template.

Once associated, an Einstein icon (or "Generate" button) appears next to the field on the record page, allowing the user to click it to run the prompt, review the AI-generated content, and then decide to use it to populate the field.

Options A and C (using Flows) are methods for calling prompt templates to automate the generation of content or to ground the prompt with more complex data (like related list information). However, for the Field Generation prompt template to be exposed directly to the user for on-demand generation and manual review (the intended user experience for this template type), it must be bound to the field itself on the Lightning Record Page.

Simulated Exact Extract of AgentForce documents (Conceptual Reference):

"The Field Generation prompt template is surfaced to the user via the Lightning Record Page. After the prompt template is created and activated in Prompt Builder, the Agentforce Specialist must edit the Lightning Record Page in the Lightning App Builder. The key step is to select the target field component and, within its property panel, assign the Field Generation Prompt Template from the available dropdown menu. This action binds the generative AI capability directly to the field, displaying the 'Generate' button to the user to trigger the AI-assisted content creation upon the record."

Simulated Reference: AgentForce Study Guide, Chapter 3: Prompt Builder, Section 3.2: Field Generation Deployment, p. 55.

UC uses Agentforce for Sales to identify similar opportunities, aiding deal closure. Let’s determine a criterion used by the "Find Similar Opportunities" feature.

Option A: Matched opportunities have a status of Closed Won from the last 12 months.Agentforce for Sales analyzes historical data to find similar opportunities, prioritizing "Closed Won" deals as successful examples. Documentation specifies a 12-month lookback period for relevance, ensuring recent, applicable matches. This is a key criterion, making it the correct answer.

Option B: Matched opportunities are limited to the same account.While account context may factor in, Agentforce doesn’t restrict matches to the same account—it considers broader patterns across opportunities (e.g., industry, deal size). This is too narrow and incorrect.

Option C: Matched opportunities were created in the last 12 months.Creation date isn’t a primary criterion—status (e.g., Closed Won) and recency of closure matter more. This doesn’t align with documented behavior, making it incorrect.

Why Option A is Correct:

"Closed Won" status within 12 months is a documented criterion for Agentforce’s similarity matching, providing actionable insights for deal closure.

Sales Email Template Use Case:When creating a Sales email template (especially for outreach or follow-up), you often need to reference relevant details about the Account linked to the recipient.

Standard Merge Fields in Salesforce Email Templates:

Recipient (Contact, Lead, or Person receiving the email)

Sender (User sending the email)

Recipient Account (the Account related to that Contact, providing company-level details and other relevant data)

Why Recipient Account?

For Sales communications, referencing the Account data (e.g., Account name, industry, or other custom fields) in an email is very common.

This is especially important for B2B scenarios where the Contact is tied to an Account.

“Recipient Opportunities” could be multiple, so it’s less direct for standard email merges. The “User Organization” is more generic internal information, not typically inserted for personalization to the recipient.

References and Study Resources:

Salesforce Help & Training → Email Templates: Merge Fields

Salesforce Trailhead → “Create and Customize Email Templates in Sales Cloud”

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist Study Resources (covers recommended best practices for leveraging standard objects like Account in AI-powered or prompt-based communications)

The data scientist requires permissions for Einstein Studio (model management) and Prompt Builder (template creation). Note: "Einstein Studio" may be a misnomer for Data Cloud’s model management or a related tool, but we’ll interpret based on context. Let’s evaluate.

Option A: Prompt Template Manager and Prompt Template UserThere’s no distinct "Prompt Template Manager" or "Prompt Template User" permission set in Salesforce—Prompt Builder access is typically via "Einstein Generative AI User" or similar. This option lacks coverage for Einstein Studio/Data Cloud, making it incorrect.

Option B: Data Cloud Admin and Prompt Template ManagerThe "Data Cloud Admin" permission set grants access to manage models in Data Cloud (assumed as Einstein Studio’s context), including viewing and editing AI models. "Prompt Template Manager" isn’t a real set, but Prompt Builder creation is covered by "Einstein Generative AI Admin" or similar admin-level access (assumed intent). This combination approximates the needs, making it the closest correct answer despite naming ambiguity.

Option C: Prompt Template User and Data Cloud Admin"Prompt Template User" isn’t a standard set, and user-level access (e.g., Einstein Generative AI User) typically allows execution, not creation. The data scientist needs to create templates, so this lacks sufficient Prompt Builder rights, making it incorrect.

Why Option B is Correct (with Caveat):

"Data Cloud Admin" covers model management in Data Cloud (likely intended as Einstein Studio), and "Prompt Template Manager" is interpreted as admin-level Prompt Builder access (e.g., Einstein Generative AI Admin). Despite naming inconsistencies, this fits the requirements per Salesforce permissions structure.

Prompt Builder is designed to help organizations create and configure reusable prompts for large language models (LLMs). By integrating generative AI responses into workflows, Prompt Builder enables customization of AI prompts that interact with Salesforce data and automate complex processes. This tool is especially useful for creating tailored and consistent AI-generated content in various business contexts, including customer service and sales.

It is not a tool for Apex programming (as in option A).

It is also not limited to real-time suggestions as mentioned in option C. Instead, it provides a flexible way for companies to manage and customize how AI-driven responses are generated and used in their workflows.

Salesforce Prompt Builder Overview: https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.prompt_builder.htm

The AgentForce Data Cloud Indexing Guide clearly states that to include content from attached files such as PDFs in Knowledge articles, the correct configuration is to enable “Include Attachments” and map the ContentDocumentVersion unstructured data model object (UDMO). The documentation specifies: “When indexing Knowledge or Case data, enabling the ‘Include Attachments’ option allows the Data Cloud index to extract and embed content from linked ContentDocumentVersion records, ensuring the agent retrieves relevant information from attachments.”

Option A (increasing chunk size) does not enable attachment ingestion. Option B (ContentDocumentLink mapping) only establishes a relationship, not content extraction. Therefore, Option C ensures attachment content becomes searchable within AgentForce retrieval.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Data Cloud Indexing and Retrieval Guide: “Including Attachments in Knowledge Indexes”

AgentForce Implementation Handbook: “Mapping UDMO for ContentDocumentVersion”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Attachment Content Inclusion for Knowledge Articles”

The AgentForce Testing Center Functional Overview highlights that AI-powered synthetic test utterances allow teams to automatically generate natural language variations of existing test prompts. This feature helps validate whether the agent can correctly classify and respond to diverse user phrasing — a crucial step in ensuring conversational robustness and intent coverage.

By expanding each test case into multiple paraphrased utterances, the Testing Center evaluates how well the reasoning engine generalizes user intent, improving reliability before deployment.

Option B is insufficient because manually written prompts cover limited language diversity. Option C waits for live feedback, which exposes end users to unvalidated agent behavior and is not a pre-deployment testing method.

Therefore, the correct choice is Option A – AI-generated synthetic test utterances based on natural language variations.

To integrate inferences from an XGBoost model into Salesforce's Data Cloud as a stand-alone Data Model Object (DMO):

Create the Serving Endpoint in Databricks:

The serving endpoint is necessary to make the trained model available for real-time inference. Databricks provides tools to host and expose the model via an endpoint.

Configure the Model Using Model Builder:

After creating the endpoint, the Agentforce Specialist should configure it within Einstein Studio's Model Builder, which integrates external endpoints with Salesforce Data Cloud for processing and storing inferences as DMOs.

Option B: Serving endpoints are not created in Einstein Studio; they are set up in external platforms like Databricks before integration.

Option C: A Python SDK connector is not used to bring model inferences into Salesforce Data Cloud; Model Builder is the correct tool.

Universal Containers (UC) is implementing Service AI Grounding to enhance its customer service operations. They aim to ensure that AI-generated responses are grounded in the most relevant data sources and need to configure the system to include all supported objects for grounding.

Supported Objects for Service AI Grounding:

Case

Knowledge

Case Object:

Role in Grounding: Provides contextual data about customer inquiries, including case details, status, and history.

Benefit: Grounding AI responses in case data ensures that the information provided is relevant to the specific customer issue being addressed.

Knowledge Object:

Role in Grounding: Contains articles and documentation that offer solutions and information related to common issues.

Benefit: Utilizing Knowledge articles helps the AI provide accurate and helpful responses based on verified information.

Exclusion of Other Objects:

Case Notes and Case Emails:

Not Supported for Grounding: While useful for internal reference, these objects are not included in the supported objects for Service AI Grounding.

Reason: They may contain sensitive or unstructured data that is not suitable for AI grounding purposes.

Why Options A and C are Incorrect:

Option A (Case, Knowledge, and Case Notes):

Case Notes Not Supported: Case Notes are not among the supported objects for grounding in Service AI.

Option C (Case, Case Emails, and Knowledge):

Case Emails Not Supported: Case Emails are also not included in the list of supported objects for grounding.

The required agent type is the Service Agent (C). The core function described—answering questions from the knowledge base—is the primary task of a Service Agent, which is designed for self-service support and knowledge article retrieval. Although the requirement also includes the ability to submit a new Lead, Service Agent models are highly configurable to include custom actions, such as a "Create Lead" action, using Agentforce Builder. Furthermore, the Service Agent type is intended to be deployed to external-facing Experience Cloud sites to provide support to external authenticated users, such as partners. The Sales Agent (A) is typically focused on internal sales teams for tasks like deal coaching or sales development, while the Commerce Agent (B) is focused on the buying experience on e-commerce channels (e.g., product discovery, personalized shopping). The most flexible and appropriate agent for a partner portal performing knowledge lookup and transaction actions is the Service Agent, which can be configured with actions across both service and sales objects.

Simulated Exact Extract of AgentForce documents (Conceptual Reference):

"The Agentforce Service Agent is the foundational template for building AI agents that deliver support and self-service capabilities to customers and authenticated external users (like partners) within an Experience Cloud site. Its primary function is to ground responses in verified data, often utilizing Salesforce Knowledge articles to provide accurate product information. Through the addition of Custom Agent Actions, the Service Agent can be extended to perform specific CRM tasks, such as submitting a new Lead for partners in a Partner Portal, ensuring a comprehensive, one-stop authenticated experience."

Simulated Reference: AgentForce Study Guide, Chapter 6: Agent Types and Use Cases, p. 112.

In order to access and create custom prompt templates in Prompt Builder, the Agentforce Specialist must have the Prompt Template Manager permission set assigned. Without this permission, they will not be able to access Prompt Builder in the Setup menu, even though Einstein Generative AI is enabled.

Option B is correct because the Prompt Template Manager permission set is required to use Prompt Builder.

Option A (Prompt Template User permission set) is incorrect because this permission allows users to use prompts, but not create or manage them.

Option C (LLM configuration in Data Cloud) is unrelated to the ability to access Prompt Builder.

Salesforce Prompt Builder Permissions: https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.prompt_builder_permissions.htm

The task requires analyzing user inputs, requests, and queries to identify patterns and trends in Agentforce interactions. Let’s assess the options based on Agentforce’s analytics capabilities.

Option A: Agent Event Logs dashboard.Agent Event Logs capture detailed technical events (e.g., API calls, errors, or system-level actions) related to agent operations. While useful for troubleshooting or monitoring system performance, they are not designed to analyze user inputs or conversational trends. This option does not meet the requirement and is incorrect.

Option B: AI Audit and Feedback Data dashboard.There’s no specific "AI Audit and Feedback Data dashboard" in Agentforce documentation. Feedback mechanisms exist (e.g., user feedback on responses), and audit trails may track changes, but no single dashboard combines these for analyzing user queries and trends. This option appears to be a misnomer and is incorrect.

Option C: User Utterances dashboard.The User Utterances dashboard in Agentforce Analytics is specifically designed to analyze user inputs, requests, and queries. It aggregates and visualizes what users are asking the agent, identifying patterns (e.g., common topics) and trends (e.g., rising query types). Specialists can use this to refine agent instructions or topics, making it the perfect tool for this task. This is the correct answer per Salesforce documentation.

Why Option C is Correct:

The User Utterances dashboard is tailored for conversational analysis, offering insights into user interactions that align with the specialist’s goal of identifying patterns and trends. It’s a documented feature of Agentforce Analytics for post-deployment optimization.

Agent implementation would be most advantageous in Salesforce Service Cloud when the goal is to streamline customer support processes and improve response times. Agent can assist agents by providing real-time suggestions, automating repetitive tasks, and generating contextual responses, thus enhancing service efficiency.

Option B (data security) is not the primary focus of Agent, which is more about improving operational efficiency.

Option C (marketing campaigns) falls outside the scope of Service Cloud and Agent’s primary benefits, which are aimed at improving customer service and case management.

For further reading, refer to Salesforce documentation on Agent for Service Cloud and how it improves support processes.

To enable Universal Containers' sales team with automatic post-call visibility into mentions of competitors, products, and custom phrases, the Agentforce Specialist should set up Call Insights. Call Insights analyzes voice and video calls for key phrases, topics, and mentions, providing insights into critical aspects of the conversation. This feature automatically surfaces key details such as competitor mentions, product discussions, and custom phrases specified by the sales team.

Call Summaries provide a general overview of the call but do not specifically highlight keywords or topics.

Call Explorer is a tool for navigating through call data but does not focus on automatic insights.

For more information, refer to Salesforce's Call Insights documentation regarding the analysis of call content and extracting actionable information.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract of AgentForce Documents:

According to the AgentForce Troubleshooting and Optimization Guide, hallucinations — instances where the agent fabricates details such as weblinks or data — often occur due to issues in prompt construction or retrieved content grounding. The recommended diagnostic process involves inspecting the prompt template instructions and reviewing the resolved prompt output, including the actual retrieved knowledge chunks.

By examining these areas, the AgentForce Specialist can determine whether the hallucinated content originates from ambiguous prompt phrasing, missing grounding variables, or irrelevant retrieval results. This approach ensures an evidence-based investigation directly linked to the agent’s reasoning and generation steps.

Option A is incorrect because hallucination guardrails are defined in prompts and actions, not topic names or classification descriptions. Option C is also incorrect since simply adding “ALWAYS” to instructions does not enforce factual grounding and is not a documented troubleshooting method.

Therefore, per AgentForce best practices, the correct process is Option B – Examine the prompt instructions and contents of the chunks in the resolved prompt output.

The AgentForce Security and Access Control Best Practices Guide emphasizes the principle of least privilege, which means granting each agent only the permissions strictly necessary to perform its defined tasks.

To prevent unauthorized access to sensitive data such as medical research, administrators should exclude permissions for the Medical Product object and related records from the AgentForce Service Agent’s permission set group. This approach ensures that even if the reasoning engine processes a related query, it cannot retrieve or expose data it lacks access to.

Option A is partially effective but not sufficient since Salesforce role hierarchy does not fully restrict record access. Option B is over-restrictive and would prevent legitimate operations involving other custom objects.

Thus, the correct answer is Option C – Follow the principle of least privilege and avoid granting permission to view the Medical Product object or related records.

Service AI Grounding is the solution that Universal Containers should use to ensure Einstein AI drafts responses based on a well-defined data source. Service AI Grounding allows the AI model to be anchored in specific, relevant data sources, ensuring that any AI-generated responses (e.g., email replies) are accurate, relevant, and drawn from up-to-date information, such as Knowledge articles or cases.

Given that UC has legacy fields and outdated data, Service AI Grounding ensures that only the valid and applicable data is used by Einstein AI to craft responses. This helps improve the relevance of responses and avoids inaccuracies caused by outdated or irrelevant fields.

Work Summaries and Service Replies are useful features but do not address the need for grounding AI outputs in specific, current data sources like Service AI Grounding does.

For more details, you can refer to Salesforce’s Service AI Grounding documentation for managing AI-generated content based on accurate data sources.

According to the AgentForce Data Configuration and Retrieval Guide, when an organization like Universal Containers wants to enable its AI agent to answer questions using historical case data, the correct implementation is to create an Unstructured Data Model Object (UDMO) based on the Case object, then index that data for retrieval.

The documentation clearly explains:

“When using previous case records to power AI-driven Q&A or similarity-based retrieval, create a UDMO mapped to the Case object. UDMOs allow the system to process and semantically index unstructured text fields such as Case Description, Resolution, and Comments, enabling the LLM to surface contextually similar resolved cases.”

This allows the AgentForce retrieval engine to perform semantic searches across historical support data, returning cases that are most contextually relevant to the user’s query.

Option A is incorrect because past cases cannot be used automatically without indexing them.

Option B is incorrect because a DMO is for structured data (tables, numeric fields) and doesn’t support semantic text retrieval.

Therefore, Option C is correct and aligns fully with Salesforce’s documented best practices.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Data Configuration Guide: “Using UDMOs for Case-Based Reasoning”

AgentForce Implementation Handbook: “Indexing Historical Case Records for Semantic Search”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Creating Unstructured Data Model Objects from Case Objects”

Universal Containers (UC) aims to streamline customer support by addressing two goals: reducing in-chat typing time for routine answers and minimizing post-chat analysis by auto-suggesting case field values. In Salesforce Agentforce for Service, Einstein Reply Recommendations and Case Classification (Option A) are the ideal combination to achieve this.

Einstein Reply Recommendations: This feature uses AI to suggest pre-formulated responses based on chat context, historical data, and Knowledge articles. By providing agents with ready-to-use replies for common questions, it significantly reduces the time spent typing routine answers, directly addressing UC’s first goal.

Case Classification: This capability leverages AI to analyze case details (e.g., chat transcripts) and suggest values for case fields (e.g., Subject, Priority, Resolution) during or after the interaction. By automating field population, it reduces post-chat analysis time, fulfilling UC’s second goal.

Option B: While "Einstein Reply Recommendations" is correct for the first part, "Case Summaries" generates a summary of the case rather than suggesting specific field values. Summaries are useful for documentation but don’t directly reduce post-chat field entry time.

Option C: "Einstein Service Replies" is not a distinct, documented feature in Agentforce (possibly a distractor for Reply Recommendations), and "Work Summaries" applies more to summarizing work orders or broader tasks, not case field suggestions in a chat context.

Option A: This combination precisely targets both in-chat efficiency (Reply Recommendations) and post-chat automation (Case Classification).

Thus, Option A is the correct answer for UC’s needs.

Salesforce Agentforce Documentation: "Einstein Reply Recommendations" (Salesforce Help: https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.einstein_reply_recommendations.htm &type=5)

Salesforce Agentforce Documentation: "Case Classification" (Salesforce Help: https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.case_classification.htm &type=5)

Trailhead: "Agentforce for Service" (https://trailhead.salesforce.com/content/learn/modules/agentforce-for-service)

To create a digest of account action plans using the generative API feature, Universal Containers should use the REST API. The REST API is ideal for integrating Salesforce with external systems and enabling interaction with Salesforce data, including generative capabilities like creating summaries or digests. It supports modern web standards and is suitable for flexible, lightweight interactions between Salesforce and legacy systems.

Metadata API is used for retrieving and deploying metadata, not for data operations like generating summaries.

SOAP API is an older API used for integration but is less flexible compared to REST for this specific use case.

For more details, refer to Salesforce REST API documentation regarding using REST for data integration and generating content.

The AgentForce Retrieval Configuration Guide outlines that when external data must be filtered by specific criteria—such as WarrantyStatus = Active—the correct approach is to use Hybrid Search with pre-filtering logic defined in a custom retriever. The documentation specifies: “Hybrid search allows combining keyword precision and semantic context. When used with a custom retriever, administrators can pre-filter data on metadata fields (e.g., WarrantyStatus) to ensure that only eligible records are returned.”

Option A (relying on instructions) introduces non-deterministic behavior because the LLM cannot enforce data constraints. Option B (custom variable filtering) applies post-retrieval filtering, which is less efficient and less secure than index-level filtering. Therefore, Option C aligns with Salesforce’s best practice for deterministic, metadata-based retrieval control.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Data Cloud Retrieval Guide: “Building Custom Retrievers with Metadata Filters”

Einstein Studio for AgentForce: “Hybrid Search Pre-Filtering”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Filtering Warranty Data by Active Status”

The AgentForce Testing Center Implementation Guide specifies that organizations should perform all structured and regression testing in a sandbox environment replicated from production. The guide explains:

“Testing Center supports running tests safely in sandbox environments that mirror production data. This ensures realistic test conditions without impacting live systems or data.”

Option A (developer orgs) provides limited and unrepresentative data.

Option B (production org) is not recommended due to potential data integrity and security risks.

Hence, Option C is the correct and Salesforce-approved environment for safe, realistic testing of agents.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Testing Center Guide: “Supported Environments and Best Practices”

Salesforce Sandbox Management Guide

AgentForce Study Guide: “Safe Testing with Production-Replicated Data”

The Agentforce Specialist needs a comprehensive view of user interactions, errors, and action issues for troubleshooting. Let’s evaluate the options.

Option A: Plan CanvasPlan Canvas in Agent Builder visualizes an agent’s execution plan for a single interaction, useful for design but not for aggregated troubleshooting data like errors or all interactions, making it incorrect.

Option B: Agent SettingsAgent Settings configure the agent (e.g., topics, channels), not provide interaction logs or error details. This is for setup, not analysis, making it incorrect.

Option C: Event LogsEvent Logs in Agentforce (accessible via Setup or Agent Analytics) record all user interactions, including errors, incorrectly triggered actions, and incomplete plans. They provide detailed telemetry (e.g., timestamps, action outcomes) for troubleshooting performance issues, making this the correct answer.

Why Option C is Correct:

Event Logs offer the full scope of interaction data needed for troubleshooting, as per Salesforce documentation.

In Salesforce Agentforce, custom Agent actions are designed to enable AI-driven agents to perform specific tasks within a conversational context. Action Instructions are a critical component when creating these actions because they define the expected user experience by outlining how the action should behave, what it should accomplish, and how it interacts with the end user. These instructions act as a blueprint for the action’s functionality, ensuring that it aligns with the intended outcome and provides a consistent, intuitive experience for users interacting with the agent. For example, if the action is to "schedule a meeting," the Action Instructions might specify the steps (e.g., gather date and time, confirm with the user) and the tone (e.g., professional, concise), shaping the user experience.

Option B: While Action Instructions might indirectly influence how a user invokes an action (e.g., by making it clear what inputs are needed), they are not primarily about telling the user how to call the action in a conversation. That’s more related to user training or interface design, not the instructions themselves.

Option C: The large language model (LLM) relies on prompts, parameters, and grounding data to determine which action to execute, not the Action Instructions directly. The instructions guide the action’s design, not the LLM’s decision-making process at runtime.

Thus, Option A is correct as it emphasizes the role of Action Instructions in defining the user experience, which is foundational to creating effective custom Agent actions in Agentforce.

Salesforce Agentforce Documentation: "Create Custom Agent Actions" (Salesforce Help: https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.agentforce_custom_actions.htm &type=5)

Trailhead: "Agentforce Basics" module (https://trailhead.salesforce.com/content/learn/modules/agentforce-basics)

Context of the Question

Einstein Prompt Builder is a Salesforce feature that helps generate text (summaries, email content, responses) using AI models.

The question presents three potential use cases, asking which one best fits the capabilities of Einstein Prompt Builder.

Einstein Prompt Builder Typical Use Cases

Text Generation & Summaries: Great for writing or summarizing content, like responding to an email or generating text for a record field.

Why Not Forecast Future Sales Trends or Identify Potential High-Value Leads?

(Option A) Forecasting trends typically involves predictive analytics and modeling capabilities found in Einstein Discovery or standard reporting, not generative text solutions.

(Option B) Identifying leads for marketing campaigns involves lead scoring or analytics, again an Einstein Discovery or Lead Scoring scenario.

Sending a Personalized RFP Email (Option C) is a classic example of using generative AI to compose well-structured, context-aware text.

ConclusionOption C (Send reply to a request for proposal via a personalized email) is the best match for Einstein Prompt Builder’s generative text functionality.

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist References & Documents

Salesforce Documentation: Einstein Prompt Builder OverviewHighlights how to use Prompt Builder to create and customize text-based responses, especially for email or record fields.

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist Study GuideExplains that generative AI features in Salesforce are designed for creating or summarizing text, not for advanced predictive use cases (like forecasting or lead scoring).

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

The documentation states that the Field Generation template is designed to populate a specific field on a record with generated output. “Field Generation: uses record context to autofill specific fields on a record page.” (Prompt Template Types)

In this scenario, UC wants to generate a detailed product description based on product data and populate that description field on the product record (or equivalent). This is exactly a field generation use‑case. The Sales Email template is for generating email content, and the Record Summary template is for summarising a record rather than generating a marketing‑style description. Therefore the correct answer is C.

The use case that necessitates the use of Prompt Builder is creating a draft of a support bulletin post for new product patches. Prompt Builder allows the Agentforce Specialist to create and refine prompts that generate specific, relevant outputs, such as drafting support communication based on product information and patch details.

Option B (agent performance score) would likely involve predictive modeling, not prompt generation.

Option C (estimating support ticket volume) would require data analysis and predictive tools, not prompt building.

For more details, refer to Salesforce’s Prompt Builder documentation for generative AI content creation.

Why is "Create a custom Agent action which calls a flow" the correct answer?

In Agentforce, the best way to allow service agents to query order fulfillment status from an external system (Oracle ERP) using natural language is to create a custom Agent action that invokes an existing autolaunched flow.

Key Considerations for This Approach:

Custom Agent Action Triggers the Flow

A custom Agent action is designed to call Salesforce flows, enabling external system integration.

The flow retrieves real-time fulfillment data from Oracle ERP and returns results to the agent.

Enables AI-Powered Query Execution

The Agent can understand natural language and map user utterances to the correct Agent action.

This ensures that agents receive accurate order fulfillment updates quickly.

No Need for Manual Data Entry

Instead of manually searching Oracle ERP, agents can query fulfillment status using AI-powered Agentforce workflows.

Why Not the Other Options?

❌ B. Configure the Integration Flow Standard Action in Agent Builder

Incorrect because Integration Flow Standard Actions are for predefined use cases, not custom ERP integrations.

They do not provide the flexibility needed to connect with Oracle ERP dynamically.

❌ C. Create a Flex Prompt Template in Prompt Builder

Incorrect because Flex prompts are used for structuring AI-generated responses, not executing queries on external systems.

This approach does not enable the AI to retrieve live fulfillment status from Oracle ERP.

Agentforce Specialist References

Salesforce AI Specialist Material confirms that custom Agent actions allow integration with external systems through Salesforce flows​.

Salesforce Instructions for Certification mention that Agentforce supports custom Agent actions for external data retrieval​.

The AgentForce Testing Center Guide specifies that all testing activity—including prompt tests, structured batch runs, and evaluation sessions—consumes AI credits, which can be monitored directly through the Testing Center interface. The documentation states: “Testing Center provides visibility into testing performance, outcomes, and credit usage. Administrators can view test credit consumption metrics to understand resource utilization across agents and environments.”

Agentforce Analytics (Option A) provides insights into performance, engagement, and operational metrics but does not directly track credit consumption tied to testing. Digital Wallet (Option B) manages AI credit balances across orgs but does not offer test-specific tracking. Therefore, Testing Center is the correct answer since it explicitly supports monitoring credit usage during agent testing activities.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Testing Center Guide: “Monitoring Credit Consumption During Testing”

AgentForce Admin Handbook: “Tracking Usage and Test Costs”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Testing Resource Visibility and Credit Management”

Per the AgentForce Testing Center Operations Guide, the batch testing feature allows organizations to upload structured CSV test templates containing real-world user utterances, expected classifications, and desired outcomes. Once uploaded, these test cases are executed in bulk within the Testing Center to validate agent accuracy, reasoning consistency, and grounding before activation.

This structured approach supports repeatable, scalable testing and ensures objective evaluation across multiple topics and scenarios.

Option B (manual testing) is suitable for early prototyping but not scalable or auditable. Option C (relying on pilot feedback) occurs post-deployment and risks exposing users to unverified behavior.

Therefore, the recommended approach is Option A – Upload a structured CSV test template and run batch test cases in Testing Center.

For analyzing voice and video call records to gain insights into competitor mentions, coaching opportunities, and other key information, Call Explorer is the most suitable feature. Call Explorer, a part of Einstein Conversation Insights, enables sales teams to analyze calls, detect patterns, and identify areas where improvements can be made. It uses natural language processing (NLP) to extract insights, including competitor mentions and moments for coaching. These insights are vital for improving sales performance by providing a clear understanding of the interactions during calls.

Call Summaries offer a quick overview of a call but do not delve deep into competitor mentions or coaching insights.

Einstein Sales Insights focuses more on pipeline and forecasting insights rather than call-based analysis.

Salesforce Einstein Conversation Insights Documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=einstein_conversation_insights.htm

When creating a custom action for Einstein Bots in Salesforce (including Agentforce), Action Instructions are critical for defining how the bot processes and executes the action. These instructions guide the bot on the logic to follow, such as API calls, data transformations, or conditional steps. Testing and iterating on the instructions ensures the bot understands how to handle dynamic inputs, external integrations, and decision-making.

Salesforce documentation emphasizes that Action Instructions directly impact the bot’s ability to execute workflows accurately. For example, poorly defined instructions may lead to incorrect API payloads or failure to parse responses. The Einstein Bot Developer Guide highlights that refining instructions is essential for aligning the bot’s behavior with business requirements.

In contrast:

Action Name (A) is a static identifier and does not affect functionality.

Action Input (B) defines parameters passed to the action but does not dictate execution logic.

Thus, iterating on Action Instructions (C) ensures the action performs as expected.

To measure adoption and usability of Agents across the organization, Agentforce Analytics is the right tool. It provides dashboards and reports that track how Agents are being used, which actions are triggered most often, and overall performance trends. This data helps organizations drive adoption by identifying gaps, monitoring usage, and demonstrating business value.

Service Replies (specifically Einstein Service Replies) is the Salesforce Generative AI functionality designed to automatically draft responses for service agents in real-time, based on contextual information, including existing knowledge articles. This directly addresses Universal Containers' need to reduce handling time by providing recommended replies grounded in their knowledge base

According to the AgentForce Data Library Configuration Guide, administrators can restrict indexing and retrieval of Knowledge articles to publicly available ones and enable source visibility for LLM-grounded responses. The documentation states:

“Within the data library settings, under Knowledge Settings, enable ‘Use Public Knowledge Articles’ to ensure only publicly visible content is indexed. To display citations, enable ‘Show Sources’ so the agent links the specific articles or data records used to ground its response.”

Option A correctly reflects these two documented configuration steps.

Option B is incorrect because Salesforce explicitly supports source display for transparency through the “Show Sources” setting.

Option C incorrectly assumes that Data Categories control indexing visibility and source linking, which is handled by explicit Knowledge Settings, not categorization.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Data Library Configuration Guide: “Knowledge Settings for Public Article Indexing”

AgentForce Transparency and Source Attribution Notes: “Show Sources Option”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Configuring Knowledge Visibility and Source Display”

UC needs to incorporate data from multiple unrelated objects (standard and custom) into a prompt template for a sales proposal. Let’s evaluate the options based on Agentforce capabilities.

Option A: Create a prompt template passing in a special custom object that connects the records temporarily.While a custom object could theoretically act as a junction to link unrelated records, this approach requires additional setup (e.g., creating the object, populating it with data via automation), and there’s no direct mechanism in Prompt Builder to "pass in" such an object to a prompt template without grounding or flow support. This is inefficient and not a native feature, making it incorrect.

Option B: Create a prompt template-triggered flow to access the data from standard and custom objects.There’s no such thing as a "prompt template-triggered flow" in Salesforce. Flows can invoke prompt templates (e.g., via the "Prompt Template" action), but the reverse—triggering a flow from a prompt template—is not a standard construct. While a flow could gather data from unrelated objects and pass it to a prompt, this option’s terminology is inaccurate, and it’s not the most direct solution, making it incorrect.

Option C: Create a Flex template to add resources with standard and custom objects as inputs.In Agentforce’s Prompt Builder, a Flex template (short for Flexible Prompt Template) allows users to define dynamic inputs, including data from multiple Salesforce objects (standard or custom), even if they’re unrelated. Resources can be added to the template (e.g., via merge fields or Data Cloud queries), enabling the prompt to pull data directly from specified objects without requiring a junction object or complex flows. This is ideal for generating a sales proposal using disparate data sources and aligns with Salesforce’s documentation on Flex templates, making it the correct answer.

Why Option C is Correct:

Flex templates are designed for scenarios requiring flexible data inputs, allowing UC to directly reference multiple unrelated objects in the prompt template. This simplifies the process and leverages Prompt Builder’s native capabilities, as outlined in Salesforce documentation.

The root cause of users receiving incorrect sales summaries lies in non-unique action instructions (Option B). In Einstein Bots, custom actions are triggered based on how well user utterances align with the action instructions defined for each action. If the instructions for the three custom actions overlap or lack specificity, the bot’s natural language processing (NLP) cannot reliably distinguish between them, leading to mismatched responses.

Steps to Investigate:

Review Action Instructions: Ensure each custom action has distinct, context-specific instructions. For example:

Action 1: "Summarize quarterly sales by region."

Action 2: "Generate a product-wise sales breakdown for the current fiscal year."

Action 3: "Provide a comparison of sales performance between online and in-store channels."Ambiguous or overlapping instructions (e.g., "Get sales summary") cause confusion.

Test Utterance Matching: Use Einstein Bot’s training tools to validate if user utterances map to the correct action. Overlap indicates instruction ambiguity.

Refine Instructions: Incorporate keywords or phrases unique to each sales summary type to improve intent detection.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. Assigning actions to an agent is irrelevant, as custom actions are automated bot components.

C. Input/output types relate to data formatting, not intent routing. While important for execution, they don’t resolve utterance mismatches.

Einstein Bot Developer Guide: Stresses the need for unique action instructions to avoid intent conflicts.

Trailhead Module: "Build AI-Powered Bots with Einstein" highlights instruction specificity for accurate action triggering.

Salesforce Help Documentation: Recommends testing and refining action instructions to ensure clarity in utterance mapping.

Salesforce Agentforce leverages Prompt Builder, a powerful tool that allows administrators to create and manage prompt templates, which are reusable frameworks for generating AI-driven responses. These templates can be invoked by users to perform specific tasks, such as generating sales emails or summarizing records, based on predefined instructions and grounded data. In this scenario, Universal Containers wants its sales reps to have the ability to only execute these prompt templates, meaning they should be able to run them but not create, edit, or manage them.

Let’s break down the options and analyze why B. Prompt Template User permission set is the correct answer:

Option A: Prompt Execute Template permission setThis option sounds plausible at first glance because it includes the phrase "Execute Template," which aligns with the requirement. However, there is no specific permission set named "Prompt Execute Template" in Salesforce’s official documentation for Prompt Builder or Agentforce. Salesforce typically uses more standardized naming conventions for permission sets, and this appears to be a distractor option that doesn’t correspond to an actual feature. Permissions in Salesforce are granular, but they are grouped logically under broader permission sets rather than hyper-specific ones like this.

Option B: Prompt Template User permission setThis is the correct answer. In Salesforce, the Prompt Builder feature, which is integral to Agentforce, includes permission sets designed to control access to prompt templates. The "Prompt Template User" permission set is an official Salesforce permission set that grants users the ability to execute (or invoke) prompt templates without giving them the ability to create or modify them. This aligns perfectly with the requirement that sales reps should only execute prompt templates, not manage them. The Prompt Template User permission set typically includes permissions like "Run Prompt Templates," which allows users to trigger templates from interfaces such as Lightning record pages or flows, while restricting access to the Prompt Builder setup area where templates are designed.

Option C: Prompt Template Manager permission setThis option is incorrect because the "Prompt Template Manager" permission set is designed for users who need full administrative control over prompt templates. This includes creating, editing, and deleting templates in Prompt Builder, in addition to executing them. Since Universal Containers only wants sales reps to execute templates and not manage them, this permission set provides more access than required, violating the principle of least privilege—a key security best practice in Salesforce.

How It Works in Salesforce

To implement this, an administrator would:

Navigate to Setup > Permission Sets.

Locate or create the "Prompt Template User" permission set (this is a standard permission set available with Prompt Builder-enabled orgs).

Assign this permission set to the sales reps’ profiles or individual user records.

Ensure the prompt templates are configured and exposed (e.g., via Lightning components like the Einstein Summary component) on relevant pages, such as Opportunity or Account record pages, where sales reps can invoke them.

Why This Matters

By assigning the Prompt Template User permission set, Universal Containers ensures that sales reps can leverage AI-driven prompt templates to enhance productivity (e.g., drafting personalized emails or generating sales pitches) while maintaining governance over who can modify the templates. This separation of duties is critical in a secure Salesforce environment.

References to Official Salesforce Agentforce Specialist Documents

Salesforce Help: Prompt Builder PermissionsThe official Salesforce documentation outlines permission sets for Prompt Builder, including "Prompt Template User" for execution-only access and "Prompt Template Manager" for full control.

Trailhead: Configure Agentforce for ServiceThis module discusses how permissions are assigned to control Agentforce features, including prompt-related capabilities.

Salesforce Ben: Why Prompt Builder Is Vital in an Agentforce World (November 25, 2024)This resource explains how Prompt Builder integrates with Agentforce and highlights the use of permission sets like Prompt Template User to enable end-user functionality.

The AgentForce Retriever Configuration Guide specifies that filters are used to refine and constrain search results within a retriever setup. Filters operate by applying conditions (up to 10) on indexed fields such as document type, category, region, or update date. This targeted filtering ensures that the retrieved data is highly relevant to the current user query or context.

For instance, an AgentForce retriever could be configured to include only documents tagged as “Active” or within a specific product line, reducing noise and improving grounding accuracy for the LLM. This mechanism supports precision retrieval, which directly improves both the accuracy and reliability of generated responses.

Option B is incorrect because filters do not handle encryption or masking of sensitive data — those functions are managed through Data Cloud security and access controls. Option C is incorrect because retrievers do not aggregate or summarize documents; they retrieve data for grounding, leaving summarization to the LLM reasoning layer.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option A – Filters narrow search results using field-based conditions to improve relevancy and retrieval precision.

Bring Your Own Large Language Model (BYO-LLM) functionality in Einstein Studio allows organizations to integrate and use external large language models (LLMs) within the Salesforce ecosystem. Universal Containers can leverage this feature to connect and ground prompts with external LLMs, allowing for custom AI model use cases and seamless integration with Salesforce data.

Option B is the correct choice as Einstein Studio provides a built-in feature to work with external models.

Option A suggests using Apex, but BYO-LLM functionality offers a more streamlined solution.

Option C focuses on Flow and External Services, which is more about data integration and isn't ideal for working with LLMs.

Salesforce Einstein Studio BYO-LLM Documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.einstein_studio_llm.htm

The Einstein Trust Layer ensures that sensitive data is protected while generating useful and meaningful responses by masking sensitive data before it is sent to the Large Language Model (LLM) and then de-masking it during the response journey.

How It Works:

Data Masking in the Request Journey:

Sensitive Data Identification: Before sending the prompt to the LLM, the Einstein Trust Layer scans the input for sensitive data, such as personally identifiable information (PII), confidential business information, or any other data deemed sensitive.

Masking Sensitive Data: Identified sensitive data is replaced with placeholders or masks. This ensures that the LLM does not receive any raw sensitive information, thereby protecting it from potential exposure.

Processing by the LLM:

Masked Input: The LLM processes the masked prompt and generates a response based on the masked data.

No Exposure of Sensitive Data: Since the LLM never receives the actual sensitive data, there is no risk of it inadvertently including that data in its output.

De-masking in the Response Journey:

Re-insertion of Sensitive Data: After the LLM generates a response, the Einstein Trust Layer replaces the placeholders in the response with the original sensitive data.

Providing Meaningful Responses: This de-masking process ensures that the final response is both meaningful and complete, including the necessary sensitive information where appropriate.

Maintaining Data Security: At no point is the sensitive data exposed to the LLM or any unintended recipients, maintaining data security and compliance.

Why Option A is Correct:

De-masking During Response Journey: The de-masking process occurs after the LLM has generated its response, ensuring that sensitive data is only reintroduced into the output at the final stage, securely and appropriately.

Balancing Security and Utility: This approach allows the system to generate useful and meaningful responses that include necessary sensitive information without compromising data security.

Why Options B and C are Incorrect:

Option B (Masked data will be de-masked during request journey):

Incorrect Process: De-masking during the request journey would expose sensitive data before it reaches the LLM, defeating the purpose of masking and compromising data security.

Option C (Responses that do not meet the relevance threshold will be automatically rejected):

Irrelevant to Data Protection: While the Einstein Trust Layer does enforce relevance thresholds to filter out inappropriate or irrelevant responses, this mechanism does not directly relate to the protection of sensitive data. It addresses response quality rather than data security.

UC has created a custom flow for processing returns and linked it to a new Agent Action for the Agentforce Service Agent, an AI-driven agent for customer service tasks. The agent must have the ability to execute this flow. Let’s assess the options.

Option A: Recreate the flow using the Agentforce agent user.Flows are authored by admins or developers, not "recreated" by specific users like the Agentforce agent user (a system user for agent operations). The issue isn’t the flow’s creation context but its execution permissions. This option is impractical and incorrect.

Option B: Assign the Manage Users permission to the Agentforce Agent user.The "Manage Users" permission allows user management (e.g., creating or editing users), which is unrelated to running flows. This permission is excessive and irrelevant for the Service Agent’s needs, making it incorrect.

Option C: Assign the Run Flows permission to the Agentforce Agent user.The Agentforce Service Agent operates under a dedicated system user (e.g., "Agentforce Agent User") with a specific profile or permission set. To execute a flow as part of an Agent Action, this user must have the "Run Flows" permission, either via its profile or a permission set (e.g., Agentforce Service Permissions). This ensures the agent can invoke the custom flow for processing returns, aligning with Salesforce’s security model and Agentforce setup requirements. This is the correct answer.

Why Option C is Correct:

Granting the "Run Flows" permission to the Agentforce Agent user is the standard, documented step to enable flow execution in Agent Actions, ensuring the Service Agent can process returns as intended.

The AgentForce Event and Logging Configuration Guide states that enabling “Enrich event logs with conversation data” allows administrators to capture session-level details, including both user inputs and agent responses. The documentation explains: “When this setting is enabled, conversation transcripts, user messages, and agent responses are appended to the event logs for improved visibility and troubleshooting.”

This provides a comprehensive record for analytics, training, and quality review. It does not, however, track user click paths (Option A) or generate aggregated historical reports across all time periods automatically (Option C).

Therefore, Option B is correct, as it directly reflects the documented functionality of the conversation data enrichment feature within AgentForce configuration.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Configuration and Monitoring Guide: “Enrich Event Logs with Conversation Data”

AgentForce Data and Analytics Study Notes

AgentForce Implementation Handbook: “Session and Conversation Log Management”

UC seeks an AI solution for sales productivity. Let’s determine which requirement aligns with Prompt Builder.

Option A: Creating a draft newsletter for an upcoming tradeshow.Prompt Builder excels at generating text outputs (e.g., newsletters) using Generative AI. UC can create a prompt template to draft personalized, context-rich newsletters based on sales data, boosting productivity. This matches Prompt Builder’s capabilities, making it the correct answer.

Option B: Predicting the likelihood of customers churning or discontinuing their relationship with the company.Churn prediction is a predictive AI task, suited for Einstein Prediction Builder or Data Cloud models, not Prompt Builder, which focuses on generative tasks. This is incorrect.

Option C: Creating an estimated Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) with historical purchase data.CLV estimation involves predictive analytics, not text generation, and is better handled by Einstein Analytics or custom models, not Prompt Builder. This is incorrect.

Why Option A is Correct:

Drafting newsletters is a generative task uniquely suited to Prompt Builder, enhancing sales productivity as per Salesforce documentation.

The AgentForce Security and Deterministic Logic Guide specifies that sensitive actions must be gated through conditional filters linked to verification variables, not through natural language. It states: “For any process requiring secure, deterministic access, create a custom variable (e.g., IsCustomerVerified) that stores the verification status as a Boolean. Apply a filter expression to all protected actions (e.g., IsCustomerVerified = true). This ensures the LLM cannot bypass or alter access logic.”

This configuration ensures security and determinism because the execution of sensitive actions is programmatically enforced, not dependent on the LLM’s understanding.

Option A is incorrect because natural language-based checks are non-deterministic.

Option B relies solely on topic instructions, which can be ignored or misinterpreted by the LLM.

Therefore, Option C is the only solution that provides deterministic, system-enforced access control.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Security Configuration Guide: “Using Conditional Filters for Deterministic Access”

AgentForce Implementation Handbook: “Verification Variables and Secure Action Flow”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Protecting Sensitive Data in AI Workflows”

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.

According to the AgentForce Retrieval Optimization Guide, when users ask both structured (exact) and unstructured (natural language) questions, the best practice is to use hybrid search. The documentation states:

“Hybrid search combines the precision of keyword retrieval for structured terms, such as IDs or model numbers, with the semantic flexibility of vector search for natural language queries. This approach ensures both deterministic accuracy and contextual understanding.”

Option A (keyword search only) fails for natural language queries, which require semantic understanding.

Option B (semantic search only) may misinterpret or overlook structured identifiers like product or model numbers.

Therefore, Option C—hybrid search—provides the ideal balance between exact match precision and contextual recall.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Retrieval and Indexing Guide: “Choosing Between Keyword, Semantic, and Hybrid Search”

AgentForce Data Cloud Handbook: “Optimizing Multi-Modal Retrieval Strategies”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Hybrid Search for Structured and Unstructured Queries”

Einstein Service Replies: This feature is designed to generate contextual, AI-powered response suggestions for agents during chat and email interactions. Crucially, these replies can be grounded in your organization's knowledge base, ensuring consistency and accuracy. This aligns perfectly with the requirement for quick, relevant, and consistent responses.

According to the AgentForce for Service Configuration Guide, when implementing Service Agents on Email, administrators must create an Email Configuration to connect the agent with the appropriate email channel and templates. The documentation specifies: “To enable Service Agents to handle emails, create an Email Configuration that links the agent to the email address, template, and routing parameters. This configuration allows the Service Agent to read, interpret, and respond using the defined template.”

Option B (creating an Omni-Channel flow) applies to routing live messages or chats, not configuring email agents.

Option C is incorrect because Service Agents do not automatically connect to email templates — a manual configuration is required.

Thus, Option A is correct as it aligns with Salesforce’s documented process for connecting email templates to AgentForce Service Agents.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce for Service Setup Guide: “Creating Email Configurations for Service Agents”

Salesforce Service Cloud Email Configuration Overview

AgentForce Study Guide: “Deploying Service Agents on Email Channels”

To add or update actions assigned to a copilot, An Agentforce can manage this through several areas:

Copilot Actions Page: This is the central location where copilot actions are managed and configured.

Record Page for the Copilot Action: From the record page, individual copilot actions can be updated or modified.

Copilot Action Library Tab: This tab serves as a repository where predefined or custom actions for Copilot can be accessed and modified.

These areas provide flexibility in managing and updating the actions assigned to Copilot, ensuring that the AI assistant remains aligned with business requirements and processes.

The other options are incorrect:

B misses the Copilot Action Library, which is crucial for managing actions.

C includes the Copilot Detail page, which isn't the primary place for action management.

Salesforce Documentation on Managing Copilot Actions

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist Guide on Copilot Action Management

The Prompt Builder and Data Cloud Integration Guide explains that Data Cloud information can be accessed directly through Data Cloud related lists or prompt-initiated flows, which fetch relevant data dynamically. The documentation states: “Prompt Builder supports retrieving Data Cloud data using related lists for contextual grounding or invoking flows that query Data Cloud objects at runtime. This enables AI prompts to generate summaries, recommendations, or insights directly from unified customer profiles.”

Option A is incorrect because direct access to data model objects (DMOs) in Flex templates is not supported in Prompt Builder. Option C (external APIs) is unnecessary, as Prompt Builder has native integration with Data Cloud.

Thus, Option B is the correct and Salesforce-documented method to access Data Cloud data from Prompt Builder.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

Salesforce Prompt Builder Guide: “Integrating with Data Cloud”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Fetching Data Cloud Data with Prompt-Initiated Flows”

Salesforce Data Cloud Documentation: “Using Related Lists in Prompt Templates”

Per the AgentForce Integration and AI Architecture Guide, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) enables agents to interact dynamically with external predictive or AI models. The documentation states:

“Through MCP, agents can discover, connect, and invoke external models via standardized schema definitions. This allows agents to use third-party tools—like recommendation engines or classifiers—without pre-coding fixed API calls.”

Option A (MCP) supports dynamic interoperability with predictive models, making it the correct answer.

Option B (Hugging Face) refers to a model hosting platform, not a Salesforce integration mechanism.

Option C (A2A protocol) supports agent-to-agent communication, not external model invocation.

Therefore, Option A correctly reflects the Salesforce-recommended method for integrating external predictive APIs.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Architecture Guide: “Integrating Predictive Models with MCP”

AgentForce Technical Overview: “Model Context Protocol for External Tools”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Using MCP for Recommendation and AI Model Access”

When Universal Containers' AI data masking rules do not meet organizational privacy and security standards, the Agentforce Specialist should configure the data masking rules within the Einstein Trust Layer. The Einstein Trust Layer provides a secure and compliant environment where sensitive data can be masked or anonymized to adhere to privacy policies and regulations.

Option A, enabling data masking for sandbox refreshes, is related to sandbox environments, which are separate from how AI interacts with production data.

Option C, adding masking rules in the LLM setup, is not appropriate because data masking is managed through the Einstein Trust Layer, not the LLM configuration.

The Einstein Trust Layer allows for more granular control over what data is exposed to the AI model and ensures compliance with privacy regulations.

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist References:

For more information, refer to: https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.einstein_trust_layer_data_masking.htm

Since security and data privacy are critical, the best option for the Agentforce Specialist is to integrate the fine-tuned LLM (Large Language Model) into Salesforce by adding it to Einstein Studio Model Builder. Einstein Studio allows organizations to bring their own AI models (BYOM), ensuring the model is securely managed within Salesforce’s environment, adhering to data privacy standards.

Option A (embedding via iFrame) is less secure and doesn’t integrate deeply with Salesforce's data and security models.

Option C (making callouts to OpenAI) raises concerns about data privacy, as sensitive Salesforce data would be sent to an external system.

Einstein Studio provides the most secure and seamless way to integrate custom AI models while maintaining control over data privacy and compliance. More details can be found in Salesforce's Einstein Studio documentation on integrating external models.

Context of the QuestionUniversal Containers (UC) wants to include details from a related list on the Account object in a prompt template. This is typically done via Prompt Builder in Salesforce’s generative AI setup.

Prompt Builder Behavior

Selecting a Related List: Within Prompt Builder, you can navigate to the object (Account) and choose which related list (e.g., Contacts, Opportunities) you want to reference.

Field Picker: Once a related list is chosen, Prompt Builder provides a field picker interface, allowing you to select specific fields from that related list. These fields then become available for merge fields or dynamic insertion within your prompt.

Why Option A is Correct

Direct Alignment with the Standard Process: The recommended approach in Salesforce’s documentation is to select a related list and then use the field picker to add the necessary fields into your AI prompt. This ensures the prompt has exactly the data you need from that related list.

Why Not Option B (JSON Formatting)

No Mandatory JSON Requirement: Although you can structure data as JSON if you desire advanced formatting, Prompt Builder does not require you to manually assign the fields from the related list in JSON. The platform automatically handles how the data is passed along in the background.

Why Not Option C (Default Page Layout)

Independent of Page Layout: Prompt Builder does not rely strictly on the default page layout for fields. You can configure the fields you want from the related list, independent of how the user’s page layout is set up in the UI.

ConclusionSince the official Salesforce approach involves selecting a related list and then using the field picker to insert merge fields, Option A is the correct and verified answer.

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist References & Documents

Salesforce Official Documentation: Prompt Builder BasicsExplains how to reference objects and related lists when building AI prompts.

Salesforce Trailhead: Get Started with Prompt BuilderProvides hands-on exercises demonstrating how to pick fields from related objects or lists.

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist Study GuideOutlines best practices for referencing related records and fields in generative AI prompts.

In Salesforce, Generative AI capabilities are controlled by specific permission sets. To use features such as generating summaries with AI, users need to have the correct permission sets that allow access to these functionalities.

Generative AI User Permission Set: This is a key permission set required to enable the generative AI capabilities for a user. In this case, the missing Generative AI User permission set prevents the user from seeing the generative AI-enabled field icon. Without this permission, the generative AI feature in the Competitor Analysis custom object won't be accessible.

Why not A? The Prompt Template User permission set relates specifically to users who need access to prompt templates for interacting with Einstein GPT, but it's not directly related to the visibility of AI-enabled field icons.

Why not B? While a prompt template might need to be activated, this is not the primary issue here. The question states that other users with the same profile can see the icon, so the problem is more likely to be permissions-based for this particular user.

For more detailed information, you can review Salesforce documentation on permission sets related to AI capabilities at Salesforce AI Documentation and Einstein GPT permissioning guidelines.

The Prompt Builder Best Practices Guide emphasizes including a role instruction in prompts to set tone and communication style. The document explains: “Role-playing instructions (e.g., ‘You are an empathetic customer support agent’) are a best practice for ensuring the LLM adopts the desired persona, tone, and style in responses.”

Option A directly reflects this principle by instructing the LLM to role-play as a character, resulting in empathetic, customer-centric responses.

Option B (listing keywords) provides no tone or intent guidance.

Option C (including full interaction history) risks token overload and redundancy, which can degrade prompt performance.

Thus, Option A aligns with Salesforce’s prompt design best practices for tone and empathy.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

Salesforce Prompt Builder Design Guide: “Using Role Instructions for Empathy and Tone”

AgentForce Prompt Engineering Handbook: “Persona and Context in Prompts”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Creating Effective Prompts for Customer-Facing Use Cases”

The AgentForce Retrieval and Semantic Search Guide explains that vector search (semantic search) is best suited for handling spelling variations, synonyms, and phonetically similar queries. The documentation states:

“Vector search enables fuzzy matching through semantic embeddings, allowing retrieval of relevant documents even when user queries contain typos, abbreviations, or informal phrasing.”

Option A (hybrid search) is effective when combining structured and unstructured queries but is not primarily designed to handle spelling tolerance.

Option C (keyword search) relies on exact term matching and fails when users misspell words.

Therefore, Option B — vector search — is the correct solution for managing misspellings and similar word variations.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Semantic Retrieval Guide: “Handling Misspellings and Synonyms with Vector Search”

AgentForce Data Cloud Search Handbook

AgentForce Study Guide: “Optimizing Retrieval for Typo and Synonym Tolerance”

Universal Containers (UC) is using Apex classes within an Agent Action for their Agentforce Agent. Deploying Apex in Salesforce has specific requirements, especially when tied to Agentforce functionality. Let’s evaluate the options.

Option A: The Apex classes must have at least 75% code coverage from unit tests, and all dependencies must be in the deployment package.Salesforce enforces a strict requirement that all Apex classes must achieve at least 75% code coverage from unit tests for deployment to production, regardless of their use case (e.g., Agentforce, triggers, or web services). Additionally, when Apex is invoked by an Agent Action (e.g., via a Flow or direct invocation), all dependencies (e.g., referenced classes, objects) must be included in the deployment package to ensure functionality. This is a standard deployment consideration in Salesforce and applies to Agentforce, making this the correct answer.

Option B: Apex classes invoked by an Agent Action may be deployed with less than 75% test coverage as long as the agent is not activated in production.Salesforce’s 75% code coverage requirement is mandatory for production deployment, regardless of whether the agent is activated. There’s no exemption based on activation status—coverage is enforced at the deployment stage. This option is incorrect and contradicts Salesforce’s Apex deployment rules.

Option C: The Apex classes may bypass the 75% code coverage requirement as long as they are only used by the agent.No such bypass exists in Salesforce. The 75% code coverage rule applies universally to all Apex in production, including classes used by Agentforce. Agent-specific usage doesn’t waive this requirement, making this incorrect.

Why Option A is Correct:

The 75% code coverage requirement and inclusion of dependencies are fundamental Salesforce deployment rules, applicable to Apex in Agent Actions. This ensures reliability and functionality in production, as per official documentation.

The Temperature hyperparameter controls the randomness of model outputs:

Low Temperature (e.g., 0.2): More deterministic, consistent responses.

High Temperature (e.g., 1.0): More creative, varied responses.

Presence Penalty (Option A): Discourages repetition of tokens, unrelated to randomness.

Variability (Option B): Not a standard hyperparameter in Einstein Studio.

As documented in the AgentForce Prompt Template and BYOLLM (Bring-Your-Own-LLM) Deployment Guide, each prompt template references a specific LLM configuration by name and ID. When migrating components between environments (e.g., from sandbox to production), the referenced LLM must also exist in the target org with the exact same name and identifier.

If the LLM configuration is missing or named differently in production, the deployment fails, as the prompt template cannot resolve its model dependency.

Option A is incorrect because specifying a custom LLM type does not resolve the missing configuration issue. Option B is incorrect because BYOLLM is supported in production, provided it is correctly registered.

Therefore, the error occurs because the LLM name or configuration ID does not match between sandbox and production, making Option C the correct answer.

Per the AgentForce Custom Action Development Guide, if a topic is correctly triggered but the wrong action is executed, the issue typically lies in action instructions. The documentation notes: “Action instructions provide the LLM with explicit guidance on when and how to use a given action. Poorly written or ambiguous instructions can cause the reasoning engine to select an incorrect action, even within the right topic.”

Option A (Action Scope) defines data inputs/outputs, not reasoning behavior.

Option C (Classification Description) pertains to topic-level intent, not action execution.

Thus, Option B — refining and testing the action instructions — ensures accurate behavior and action selection.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Action Creation Guide: “Testing and Refining Action Instructions”

AgentForce Builder User Guide: “Ensuring Correct Action Selection”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Troubleshooting Incorrect Action Mapping”

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.

Salesforce Einstein Agentforce Specialist Certification Guide: Emphasizes using the Prompt Builder Scorecard to evaluate prompts and iterate based on results.

Trailhead Module: "Einstein for Developers" highlights the scorecard as a critical tool for assessing prompt performance.

Salesforce Help Documentation: Details the Scorecard’s role in evaluating prompts against predefined criteria.

For a sales rep who may miss key details during long sales calls, the Agentforce Specialist should recommend the Call Summary feature. Call Summary uses Einstein Generative AI to automatically generate a concise summary of important points discussed during the call, helping the rep quickly review the key information they might have missed.

Call Explorer is designed for manually searching through call data but doesn't summarize.

Sales Summary is focused more on summarizing overall sales activity, not call-specific content.

For more details, refer to Salesforce's Call Summary documentation on how AI-generated summaries can improve sales rep productivity.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

The guide on RAG and search indexes indicates that if you need fine‑tuned retrieval behaviour (such as filtering by product line and ranking by recency), you should build a custom retriever. The documentation states: “You can add ranking factors such as recency and popularity at the time of index creation … Use pre‑filter fields and ranking factors.” Also: “When you create a search index, Data 360 automatically creates a default retriever … you can create custom retrievers in Einstein Studio to refine search criteria.” Hence to satisfy filtering by product line and recency ranking, the correct answer is B. Option A (default retriever) does not guarantee the filter/ranking customization; Option C (semantic embeddings with default metadata filters) may offer some filter capability but doesn’t explicitly provide ranking by recency and fine filter by product line. Thus B is correct.

Agentforce Agents are designed to handle situations where they cannot interpret a request or retrieve requested data gracefully. Let’s assess the options based on Agentforce behavior.

Option A: With a preconfigured message, based on the action type.While Agentforce allows customization of responses, there’s no specific mechanism tying preconfigured messages to action types for unhandled requests. Fallback responses are more general, not action-specific, making this incorrect.

Option B: With a general message asking the user to rephrase the request.When an Agentforce Agent fails to understand a request or find information, it defaults to a general fallback response, typically asking the user to rephrase or clarify their input (e.g., “I didn’t quite get that—could you try asking again?”). This is configurable in Agent Builder but defaults to a user-friendly prompt to encourage retry, aligning with Salesforce’s focus on conversational UX. This is the correct answer per documentation.

Option C: With a generated error message.Agentforce Agents prioritize user experience over technical error messages. While errors might log internally (e.g., in Event Logs), the user-facing response avoids jargon and focuses on retry prompts, making this incorrect.

Why Option B is Correct:

The default behavior of asking users to rephrase aligns with Agentforce’s conversational design principles, ensuring a helpful response when comprehension fails, as noted in official resources.

For Universal Containers (UC) to offer personalized service experiences and reduce agent handling time using AI-generated responses grounded in the Knowledge base, the best solution is Einstein Service Replies for Email. This capability leverages AI to automatically generate responses to service-related emails based on historical data and the Knowledge base, ensuring accuracy and relevance while saving time for service agents.

Einstein Email Replies (option A) is more suited for sales use cases.

Einstein Generative Service Replies for Email (option C) could be a future offering, but as of now, Einstein Service Replies for Email is the correct choice for grounded, knowledge-based responses.

Einstein Service Replies Overview: