Free Practice Questions for Salesforce Agentforce-Specialist Exam

Context of the QuestionUniversal Containers (UC) wants its support agents to use Agentforce to ask questions about product tutorials and product guides. Agentforce typically references knowledge sources to provide accurate and contextual responses.

Why Knowledge Articles?

Centralized Repository: Publishing product tutorials and guides as Knowledge articles in Salesforce ensures that the information is readily available and searchable by Agentforce.

AI Integration: Salesforce’s AI solutions, including Agentforce, can often be configured to pull content directly from Salesforce Knowledge articles, giving users on-demand answers without manual data duplication.

Maintenance & Updates: Storing content in Salesforce Knowledge simplifies content updates, versioning, and user permissions.

Why Not the Other Options?

Option A (Create a Prompt Template): Creating a prompt template alone does not solve how the underlying content (tutorials, guides) is stored or accessed by Agentforce. Prompt templates shape the queries/responses but do not provide the knowledge base.

Option B (Add an Answer Questions Custom Field): A single field on the product object is insufficient for the depth of information found in tutorials and guides. It also lacks the robust search and user-friendly interface that Knowledge articles provide.

ConclusionTo ensure Agentforce can effectively retrieve and deliver accurate information about products, publishing product tutorials and guides as Knowledge articles is the recommended approach.

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist References & Documents

Salesforce Documentation: Set Up Salesforce KnowledgeDiscusses how to publish articles for easy access

by AI-driven assistants and support teams.

Salesforce Agentforce Specialist Study GuideExplains best practices for feeding knowledge sources to generative AI and Agentforce.

The AgentForce Data Cloud Retrieval and Ranking Guide highlights that when outdated Knowledge articles appear before newer ones, administrators should configure ranking factors that prioritize content based on recency. The documentation specifies: “Adding a recency ranking factor using the LastModifiedDate or LastPublishedDate fields ensures the retrieval prioritizes the most up-to-date documents, improving response relevance.”

Option A (disabling keyword index) would remove precision in retrieval and does not address recency.

Option B (changing chunking strategy) affects data segmentation, not ranking order.

Therefore, Option C — adding a ranking factor for recency — is the correct way to ensure updated articles are prioritized.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Data Cloud Hybrid Search Configuration Guide: “Applying Recency Ranking”

AgentForce Knowledge Management Handbook: “Prioritizing Updated Articles in Search”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Ranking and Weighting Strategies for Knowledge Retrieval”

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

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

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

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

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.

In Agent, the role of the Large Language Model (LLM) is to analyze user inputs and identify the best matching actions that need to be executed. It uses natural language understanding to break down the user’s request and determine the correct sequence of actions that should be performed.

By doing so, the LLM ensures that the tasks and actions executed are contextually relevant and are performed in the proper order. This process provides a seamless, AI-enhanced experience for users by matching their requests to predefined Salesforce actions or flows.

The other options are incorrect because:

A mentions finding similar requests, which is not the primary role of the LLM in this context.

C focuses on access and sorting by priority, which is handled more by security models and governance than by the LLM.

Universal Containers (UC) needs a solution that can automatically qualify and nurture thousands of new leads 24/7, provide accurate and consistent responses to prospects, schedule meetings for qualified leads, and allow sales representatives to focus on relationship building and closing deals. These needs align precisely with the Agentforce SDR Agent.

According to official AgentForce documentation, “Agentforce SDR helps sales teams qualify and nurture leads at scale, around the clock. It acts as a digital sales development representative capable of engaging new leads instantly, asking the right qualifying questions, answering inquiries accurately using connected Salesforce data, and automatically scheduling meetings on behalf of the sales team.”

The documentation further explains that the SDR Agent is designed to “personalize outreach, manage follow-up sequences, and book meetings directly from your website or campaign pages.” This automation “frees your human reps to focus on high-value interactions and closing opportunities rather than manual lead qualification.”

By contrast, the Sales Coach capability focuses on guiding and coaching sales representatives internally rather than interacting with prospects, and the Commerce Agent is designed for e-commerce use cases such as assisting shoppers with product discovery and order management—not lead nurturing.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce SDR Overview – Salesforce AgentForce Documentation

AgentForce for Sales – SDR Agent Use Cases

AgentForce Study Guide: “Qualify and Nurture Leads at Scale with SDR Agents”

Salesforce Trailhead: “Get to Know AgentForce SDR”

UC’s sales reps need an AI action to draft personalized emails based on past successful communications, reducing manual review time. Let’s evaluate the standard Agent actions.

Option A: Agent Action: Summarize Record"Summarize Record" generates a summary of a record (e.g., Opportunity, Contact), useful for overviews but not for drafting emails or leveraging past communications. This doesn’t meet the requirement, making it incorrect.

Option B: Agent Action: Find Similar Opportunities"Find Similar Opportunities" identifies past deals to inform strategy, not to draft emails. It provides data, not text generation, making it incorrect.

Option C: Agent Action: Draft or Revise Sales EmailThe "Draft or Revise Sales Email" action in Agentforce for Sales (sometimes styled as "Draft Sales Email") uses the Atlas Reasoning Engine to generate personalized email content. It can analyze past successful communications (e.g., via Opportunity or Contact history) to tailor emails for renewals or deals, saving reps time. This directly addresses UC’s need, making it the correct answer.

Why Option C is Correct:

"Draft or Revise Sales Email" is a standard action designed for personalized email generation based on historical data, aligning with UC’s productivity goal per Salesforce documentation.

According to the AgentForce for Service Configuration Guide, for an agent to interact with and retrieve Knowledge articles, it must have Knowledge object and field access, along with the “Allow View Knowledge” permission. The documentation explains: “Agents need permission to access Knowledge records and their fields to retrieve and summarize content accurately. Additionally, the Allow View Knowledge setting enables the agent to use the Knowledge object as a retrieval source.”

Option A is incomplete because “Run Flows” is unrelated to Knowledge article access. Option C refers to custom object permissions and external user management, which are unrelated to Knowledge configuration. Therefore, Option B provides the correct and required set of permissions for AgentForce Service Agents to access and utilize Knowledge data effectively.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce for Service Setup Guide: “Knowledge Article Access and Permissions”

Salesforce Knowledge Configuration Guide: “Granting View Knowledge Access to Agents”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Configuring Service Agents for Knowledge Retrieval”

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.

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

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

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

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

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