Free Practice Questions for Salesforce Agentforce-Specialist Exam

The User Utterances dashboard (Option A) is the correct functionality for analyzing user inputs, requests, and queries to identify patterns and trends. This dashboard aggregates and categorizes the natural language inputs (utterances) from users, enabling the Agentforce Specialist to:

Identify Common Queries: Surface frequently asked questions or recurring issues.

Detect Intent Patterns: Understand how users phrase requests, which helps refine intent detection models.

Improve Bot Training: Highlight gaps in training data or misclassified utterances that require adjustment.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

B. Agent Event Logs dashboard: Focuses on agent activity (e.g., response times, resolved cases) rather than user input analysis.

C. AI Audit & Feedback Data dashboard: Tracks AI model performance, audit trails, and user feedback scores but does not directly analyze raw user utterances or queries.

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”

Agent currently supports various actions like creating and updating records but does not support the Delete Record action. Therefore, the user's request to delete activities from the past 7 days cannot be fulfilled using Agent.

Unsupported Action: The inability to delete records is due to the current limitations of Agent's supported actions. It is designed to assist with tasks like data retrieval, creation, and updates, but for security and data integrity reasons, it does not facilitate the deletion of records.

User Permissions: Even if the user has the necessary permissions to delete records within Salesforce, Agent itself does not have the capability to execute delete operations.

For Einstein Sales Emails to generate personalized follow-up emails, it is crucial to ground the email content with the most up-to-date and accurate information. Grounding refers to connecting the AI model with real-time data. The most appropriate technique in this case is Ground with Record Merge Fields. This method ensures that the content in the emails pulls dynamic and accurate data directly from Salesforce records, such as lead or contact information, ensuring the follow-up is relevant and customized based on the specific record.

Record Merge Fields ensure the generated emails are highly personalized using data like lead name, company, or other Salesforce fields directly from the records.

Apex Merge Fields are typically more suited for advanced, custom logic-driven scenarios but are not the most straightforward for this use case.

Automatic grounding using Draft with Einstein is a different feature where Einstein automatically drafts the email, but it does not specifically ground the content with record-specific data like Record Merge Fields.

According to the AgentForce Prompt Template Versioning Guide, when a prompt template version is marked as immutable, it means that no edits or modifications can be made to that version after it has been activated. This ensures that the logic, wording, and grounding parameters tied to that version remain locked and consistent for auditing, reproducibility, and compliance purposes.

If further changes are required, the system automatically creates a new draft version of the template. The old version remains immutable and preserved for traceability.

Option B is incorrect because multiple versions can exist, and older versions can remain active under specific testing or rollback scenarios. Option C is partially true but incomplete—the immutability refers to the frozen nature of an active version, not just version creation.

Thus, the correct explanation is Option A – Once a prompt template version is activated, it becomes immutable and cannot be changed.

The AgentForce for Service Implementation Guide confirms that when automating customer service and complaint resolution, the correct solution is a Service Agent. The documentation states:

“Service Agents handle customer inquiries, complaints, and issue resolution workflows. They can automate actions such as offering credits, applying upgrades, and escalating severe cases to human support.”

Flex prompt templates are recommended for these scenarios, as they allow contextual control and personalization based on the complaint details.

Option A (Sales Agent) focuses on sales-related tasks like lead nurturing.

Option B (Custom Agent) could work but lacks the pre-built integrations and actions designed for service workflows.

Thus, Option C aligns with Salesforce’s best-practice model for customer issue automation.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce for Service Guide: “Automating Complaint Resolution”

AgentForce Prompt Template Handbook: “Using Flex Templates in Service Workflows”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Deploying Service Agents for Escalation and Resolution Scenarios”

According to the AgentForce Search Optimization Guide, when the use case requires retrieving exact matches (such as policy clause numbers, legal identifiers, or invoice IDs) from structured data, the recommended approach is to use keyword search. The documentation specifies: “Keyword search ensures deterministic retrieval of exact term matches from structured fields, preserving precision for identifiers, numeric values, and code references.”

Semantic search (Option C) uses contextual understanding and synonym expansion, which may yield near matches but not exact ones. Hybrid search (Option B) combines both semantic and keyword results for general knowledge retrieval, but it introduces probabilistic ranking—not suitable for exact legal or compliance queries.

Therefore, for the compliance use case where exact clause number matching is required, keyword search guarantees accuracy, speed, and compliance integrity.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

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

AgentForce Compliance and Legal Data Search Best Practices

AgentForce Study Guide: “Optimizing Structured Data Search for Exact Matches”

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.

The AgentForce Action Sequencing and Deterministic Flow Guide explains that to ensure actions are executed in a specific and predictable order, administrators must explicitly define the order of actions in the topic setup. The documentation states:

“To achieve deterministic control, sequence the topic’s actions in the desired order of execution. This ensures that dependent actions, such as data retrieval followed by record creation, execute consistently and predictably.”

Option A (specifying the LLM provider) affects model behavior but not execution sequence.

Option B (custom variables and filters) controls conditional logic, not the order of execution.

Therefore, Option C — specifying the action order — ensures full deterministic control.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Builder Guide: “Defining and Ordering Actions in Topics”

AgentForce Deterministic Logic Handbook

AgentForce Study Guide: “Ensuring Predictable Action Sequences”

According to the AgentForce Product Overview and Deployment Guide, Salesforce recommends using purpose-built agents to maximize efficiency across departments. The documentation states:

“Each AgentForce agent type is optimized for a specific function — SDR Agent for sales development and lead nurturing, Service Agent for customer service and support cases, and Employee Agent for internal HR, IT, and productivity tasks.”

This separation ensures that each team benefits from a domain-specific agent equipped with the correct data access and actions.

Option B incorrectly assigns agent types to mismatched use cases, and Option C reduces efficiency and control by using a single generic agent for multiple domains, which goes against Salesforce’s modular AI design principle.

Thus, Option A best aligns with Salesforce’s guidance for role-based AgentForce deployment.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Product Overview: “Agent Types and Use Cases”

AgentForce Implementation Guide: “Aligning Agents to Departmental Functions”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Optimizing Team Efficiency with Specialized Agents”