Set Field Level Security

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it sets FLS across profiles, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like effects on existing FLS or required permissions. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two concise sentences plus a compact parameter legend. It front-loads the primary action and use case, with no redundant filler or vague language.

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 straightforward setter tool with three fully documented parameters, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how the parameters map to its operation. It does not explain return values or failure modes, but the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and openWorldHint provide enough additional context to make it sufficiently complete.

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 fully documents objectName, fieldName, and profiles. The description repeats these in a compact legend and adds a concrete example for fieldName ('Revenue__c') and the profile object shape, but this 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 clearly states the verb ('Sets') and resource ('field-level security for a field across one or more profiles'), and specifies the behavior (controlling read/edit per profile). This distinguishes it from siblings like sf_get_field_permissions (which reads permissions) and sf_create_permission_set (which creates a permission set).

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use after creating a custom field to make it visible and editable to the right profiles.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario is clear enough for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool over similar permission-related tools.

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