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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions grant/revoke/view and bulk updates, but does not disclose consequences of the default editable/readable values, whether operations are reversible, required permissions, or what happens if profileNames is omitted for grant/revoke. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency 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 well-organized with a clear opening, bulleted capabilities, and concrete examples. It is slightly repetitive in that the examples restate the bullets, but overall it is compact and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 description mentions permission sets, but the input schema only supports profileNames, creating a misleading gap. It also does not clarify operation-specific requirements, such as whether profileNames is needed for view or what defaults apply when readable/editable are omitted. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent lacks enough context to call this tool reliably in all 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some practical context through examples, such as using 'System Administrator' and 'read-only access', but it does not explain relationships between operation, readable, editable, and profileNames 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 clearly identifies the tool as managing Field Level Security for custom and standard fields, and enumerates the specific operations: grant, revoke, view, and bulk update. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like salesforce_manage_field by focusing on profile/permission-set access rather than field definitions, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 bulleted capabilities and examples imply when to use the tool: granting access, giving read-only access, and checking access. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how to choose between this and the sibling salesforce_manage_field tool, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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