sf_get_user_object_create_access

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 implies a read-only permission check but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, describe the return format, or clarify behavior when multiple objects are passed. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that could be used to prevent unauthorized operations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it an effective and efficient statement of the tool's function.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain optional parameters, return structure, or error behavior, and it does not differentiate the tool from similar siblings. This is insufficient for an agent to safely and accurately invoke the tool in all intended contexts.

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%, so the description must compensate. It conveys the meaning of userId and objectApiNames ('single user' and 'one or more objects'), but leaves directory and targetOrg unexplained. These optional parameters likely affect org targeting, and the description does not clarify their purpose.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource: object-level create permission for a single user across one or more objects. It distinguishes the tool from generic query tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from its close sibling sf_get_user_record_access.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sf_get_user_record_access. The description states only what the tool does, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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