salesforce_manage_debug_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and excels by adding rich context beyond what the input schema provides. It details validation ('validates that the specified user exists'), default behaviors (e.g., defaults for logLevel, expirationTime, limit, includeBody), and interactive aspects ('will ask for clarification' if logLevel unspecified), covering safety, side effects, and system interactions comprehensively.

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 with a clear purpose statement, detailed examples, and notes section, but it is somewhat lengthy due to extensive examples and notes. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance, though it could be more front-loaded; the core purpose is stated first, but the depth of detail might overwhelm initial scanning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, multiple operations) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is highly complete, covering operations, parameters, defaults, validation, and examples. However, it does not describe the return format or error handling, which are gaps for a tool with no output schema, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining parameter semantics beyond the schema. It clarifies dependencies (e.g., 'username parameter is required for all operations'), optionality rules, default values, enum meanings ('Log levels: NONE, ERROR...'), and operational contexts through examples, making the tool much more usable than the schema alone would allow.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('enable, disable, or retrieve logs') and resource ('debug logs for Salesforce users'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like salesforce_query_records or salesforce_dml_records that handle different Salesforce operations. The title is null, making the description's clarity even more critical, and it successfully communicates the exact functionality.

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 to use this tool (managing debug logs) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. The examples implicitly guide usage by showing different operations, but there's no direct comparison to other tools like salesforce_read_apex for log-related tasks, leaving some ambiguity.

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