sf_is_field_nillable

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 states the action but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (e.g., boolean), any required permissions, or error behavior. This is similar to the 'Update shared drive settings' example, which also got a 2 for not explaining side effects.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is quite sparse. It does not mention the return value (likely a boolean), any required setup, or how the result is presented. The tool is simple, but for an agent to invoke it correctly, more context on behavior and constraints would be needed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It mentions 'field' and 'object', which map to fieldName and objectName, but gives no details about the other parameters like directory and targetOrg, nor does it explain their meaning or required format. Thus it adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 'Determine whether a Salesforce field is nillable on a specific object' uses a specific verb ('determine'), identifies the resource (Salesforce field) and the condition (nillable on a specific object). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like sf_describe_object or sf_query_org, which are broader or data-focused.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using sf_describe_object to inspect field properties. It also lacks any context on prerequisites (e.g., needing objectName/fieldName to exist) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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