sf_assign_permission_set

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing that it mutates data, whether it is reversible, or any required permissions. The lack of behavioral details is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence. It contains no filler and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse and remember.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only covers the core action. It omits details about optional parameters, side effects, return values, or error conditions, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke without additional clarification.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'permission sets' and 'a user', which vaguely map to permissionSetNames and onBehalfOfUser, but leaves confirm, directory, and targetOrg unexplained. This is insufficient for selecting and filling parameters correctly.

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 verb 'assign', the resource 'permission sets', and the target 'a user', while noting support for multiple sets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_remove_permission_set, which performs the opposite action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sf_remove_permission_set or sf_assign_permset_group. It does not mention prerequisites like selecting the targetOrg or when assignment is appropriate, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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