salesforce_manage_field_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool can grant/revoke/view field permissions, implying mutation for grant/revoke operations. However, it does not detail required permissions, reversibility, or side effects (e.g., profile changes may affect multiple users).

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 concise: 4 sentences plus a bullet list and examples. It avoids unnecessary detail, is well-structured, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (6 params, 3 required, no output schema), the description covers operations and examples. It lacks context on error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., Salesforce permissions to modify FLS), or limitations (e.g., profile name case sensitivity). However, the provided examples and schema make it fairly usable.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema—only listing example scenarios. Since the schema already documents parameter meaning, the description adds value mainly through examples but not essential additional 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 manages Field Level Security (Field Permissions) for custom/standard fields, listing specific operations (grant, revoke, view, bulk update). It distinguishes from sibling tools like salesforce_manage_field, which handles field creation/deletion, by focusing on permissions.

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 usage through examples (e.g., granting access, viewing permissions) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like salesforce_manage_field for field metadata changes. No 'when-not' guidance or alternative tool names are provided.

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