salesforce_manage_field

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key side effect: 'Automatically grants Field Level Security to System Administrator (or specified profiles).' It also lists the operations (create/update) and relationship behaviors. It does not mention potential destructive aspects (e.g., updating an existing field could overwrite configuration), but the description is reasonably transparent for a tool of this complexity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with a clear opening statement, bulleted capabilities, and examples. It is longer than a two-sentence description but every section adds relevant information. The formatting improves scannability, and there is no redundant repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (18 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: field types, properties, relationships, FLS side-effect, and examples. It lacks a description of return values or error behavior, but for a management tool with rich input schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly linking parameters to use cases, such as 'Use grantAccessTo parameter to specify profiles, defaults to System Administrator,' and providing examples that illustrate how parameters (e.g., type, objectName, fieldName) combine. It does not explain every parameter but enriches the schema with practical context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create new custom fields or modify existing fields on any Salesforce object.' It also lists capabilities (field types, properties, relationships) and gives concrete examples ('Add Rating__c picklist to Account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like salesforce_manage_object (which manages objects) and salesforce_manage_field_permissions (which handles FLS).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies its use case (when you need to create or update custom fields) and mentions the auto-granting of FLS, which clarifies its relationship to salesforce_manage_field_permissions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, though the context signals (e.g., 'Create Account lookup on Custom Object') effectively guide usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.