salesforce_manage_field

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses a non-obvious side effect: 'Automatically grants Field Level Security to System Administrator (or specified profiles).' It does not disclose prerequisites, error behavior, or whether updates to existing fields have destructive or irreversible consequences, leaving gaps 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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, bullet summary of key capabilities, examples, and a note about access defaults. It is economical and readable, though the bullet list overlaps with schema content slightly.

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?

For a complex 18-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description supplies a solid high-level orientation and flags FLS behavior, but it omits return/result information, permission prerequisites, and conditional parameter requirements (e.g., referenceTo needed for Lookup/MasterDetail). It is adequate for selection but not fully complete for safe invocation in edge cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 18 parameters. The description adds useful conceptual grouping and examples, and restates the grantAccessTo default, but it does not add meaningfully new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Create new custom fields or modify existing fields on any Salesforce object.' Concrete examples ('Add Rating__c picklist to Account') anchor the purpose and make it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like salesforce_manage_object or salesforce_manage_field_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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever custom fields need to be created or modified, and it gives representative examples. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with closely related siblings, such as salesforce_manage_object for creating objects or salesforce_manage_field_permissions for permission-only workflows, so an agent gets no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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