sf_enable_debug_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the mechanism ('creating a TraceFlag') but fails to disclose side effects, permission requirements, whether existing TraceFlags are replaced, expiration behavior, or the impact on the user's logging. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence and front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters, making the brevity a drawback rather than a virtue. It could earn a higher score if it included more essential details without becoming verbose.

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 (7 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about return values, error conditions, parameter semantics, or usage context. While it states the purpose, an agent has insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly in real scenarios.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. The phrase 'for a user' hints at username, but that is already obvious from the schema property. The meanings of confirm, logType, directory, targetOrg, expirationMinutes, and debugLevelDeveloperName are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent unable to set them 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 action ('Enable debug logs'), the target ('for a user'), and the mechanism ('by creating a TraceFlag'). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_disable_debug_logs and sf_list_debug_logs.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or how it relates to sf_disable_debug_logs or other logging tools. The agent is left without context for choosing this tool.

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