salesforce_manage_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that 'Changes affect metadata and require proper permissions,' which is valuable. Still, it omits other relevant behaviors such as side effects of updating existing objects, irreversibility, or what happens on partial failure, leaving the mutation profile only partially transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded, and uses bullets and examples effectively. The structure makes the two operation modes immediately visible. The only questionable element is the unsupported 'fields, relationships, and settings' phrase; otherwise the description is efficient and well organized.

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 metadata mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the agent should expect after a successful call. It provides a permission caveat and examples, but it does not describe return values, failure modes, or update semantics, and it inaccurately hints at field/relationship creation. This leaves the tool incompletely specified for reliable invocation.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. However, the description's claim that creates involve 'fields, relationships, and settings' is not supported by the input schema, which has no field or relationship parameters. This misleading statement detracts from the schema's otherwise clear parameter documentation, so the score is lowered.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create new custom objects or modify existing ones in Salesforce.' The bullets and examples clarify the create/update operations, and the note 'Changes affect metadata' distinguishes this from data operations like salesforce_dml_records. It is easy for an agent to identify this as the metadata object management tool.

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 context for use is implied: create or update custom object metadata. However, the description never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like salesforce_manage_field or salesforce_dml_records, nor does it provide 'when not to use' guidance. The usage scenario is clear but exclusions and alternatives are left to inference.

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