Agentforce-Specialist Exam Dumps - Salesforce Certified Agentforce Specialist (AI-201)

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

The best practices guide for AgentForce and RAG emphasises that when using unstructured data and search indexes for grounded responses, you must consider privacy, security and data sensitivity. It mentions that search indexes should be curated, fields selected, and vectorised only where appropriate. Masking sensitive data and limiting index to non‑PII or aggregated forms is aligned to compliance and governance. Relying purely on prompt logic (option B) is unsafe; encrypting embeddings but still indexing raw PII (option C) still poses risk. Hence the correct and safe practice is option A.

The AgentForce Action Design Guide emphasizes that concise and clear action instructions are essential for predictable and reliable agent behavior. The documentation states: “Action instructions should be concise, clearly define the purpose of the action, and specify its expected inputs and outputs. Each action must be validated through testing in AgentForce Builder to confirm the LLM interprets and executes it as intended.”

This aligns with Option A, which focuses on clarity and testing.

Option B incorrectly focuses on label-intent matching, which is a naming best practice but not sufficient for accuracy.

Option C promotes overly detailed instructions, which can lead to LLM confusion and inconsistent results.

Therefore, Option A best aligns with Salesforce’s official best practices for creating and validating custom actions.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Action Design and Testing Guide

AgentForce Builder Documentation: “Validating Custom Actions”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Creating Clear and Testable Action Instructions”

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”

According to the AgentForce Action Orchestration and Control Logic Guide, deterministic restrictions on action execution should be implemented using context variables and conditional filters.

By creating a context variable (e.g., AccountStatus) that pulls the customer’s current status and applying a conditional filter that limits execution to cases where AccountStatus = "Active", the refund action can be programmatically restricted. This ensures the agent can only trigger the refund flow when conditions are met, providing both consistency and governance over sensitive actions.

Option A (adding instructions in a prompt) is non-deterministic — the LLM might ignore or misinterpret instructions. Option C (explaining rules in text) adds guidance but not enforcement. Only filters guarantee deterministic enforcement.

Thus, the correct answer is Option B – Use context variables with conditional filters for deterministic action control.

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

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

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

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

Why Option A is Correct:

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

The 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.

Context of the QuestionUniversal Containers (UC) uses Agentforce, a specialized AI-driven assistant for Salesforce. A user reports that an Agent is unable to delete recent activities.

Why Agentforce Cannot Delete Records

Agentforce’s Standard Actions: Agentforce typically has predefined or “standard” actions like Create, Update, or Summarize records. However, a standard Delete Record action is not part of the default set of Agentforce actions.

Implication: If Agentforce has no built-in delete functionality, it cannot remove activities—even if the user has permission to delete them in the Salesforce UI.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect

Option A – Permission to Delete the User’s Records: Standard Salesforce user permissions do not automatically extend to Agentforce’s capabilities. Even if the user can delete records, that doesn’t grant Agentforce a new action.

Option B – Agentforce Delete Record Action Permission: There is no separate “Delete Record Action permission” for Agentforce to be toggled. The relevant issue is that the standard Delete Record action does not exist within Agentforce out of the box.

ConclusionThe core reason for the issue is that Agentforce does not support a standard Delete Record action (Choice C).

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist References & Documents

Salesforce Official Documentation – Agentforce(Note: Agentforce may be a pilot or specialized feature; check pilot release notes or official docs for standard actions.)

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist Study GuideCovers the limitations of certain AI-enabled features regarding record operations.

The Einstein Trust Layer is designed to ensure responsible and compliant AI usage. Data Masking (B) is the mechanism that directly addresses compliance with data protection regulations like GDPR by obscuring or anonymizing sensitive personal data (e.g., names, emails, phone numbers) before it is processed by AI models. This prevents unauthorized exposure of personally identifiable information (PII) and ensures adherence to privacy laws.

Salesforce documentation explicitly states that Data Masking is a core component of the Einstein Trust Layer, enabling organizations to meet GDPR requirements by automatically redacting sensitive fields during AI interactions. For example, masked data ensures that PII is not stored or used in AI model training or inference without explicit consent.

In contrast:

Toxicity Scoring (A) identifies harmful or inappropriate content in outputs but does not address data privacy.

Prompt Defense (C) guards against malicious prompts or injection attacks but focuses on security rather than data protection compliance.