Create Field Set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and idempotentHint=true, which covers safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about the Metadata API and the distinction between displayed fields and availableFields: 'Specify the displayed fields (in the field set) and optionally additional available fields that users can add.' This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses three sentences to convey what, why, and how. Every sentence adds value: the first states the main action, the second explains the concept, and the third clarifies parameter usage. No filler or repetition.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the resource type, the method, and the input structure. It does not discuss behavior on duplicate names or permission requirements, but given the 100% schema coverage and annotations, this is a minor gap. The tool is well-contextualized for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning to the key parameters by explaining that 'fields' are the displayed fields and 'availableFields' are optional additional fields users can add. This clarifies the distinction between the two array parameters beyond their schema descriptions, warranting a 4.

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's function: 'Creates a field set on a Salesforce object via the Metadata API.' It specifies the exact resource (field set), the target (Salesforce object), and the method (Metadata API), which distinguishes it from the many other creation tools in the sibling list. It also explains the purpose of field sets, adding context beyond the name.

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 provides clear context for when field sets are relevant: 'used in dynamic forms, Apex code, and LWC.' This implies appropriate use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent on when to invoke this tool. A score of 4 is appropriate as it offers clear context without explicit alternative comparisons.

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