salesforce_manage_field

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses a key side effect – automatically granting FLS to System Administrator (or specified profiles) – and notes the default profile. However, it doesn't mention permissions required, reversibility, or failure modes, leaving gaps.

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 bullet points, front-loads the purpose, and includes examples. It's appropriately sized, though the note about grantAccessTo slightly duplicates schema info.

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 an 18-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides a good overview and examples but omits operational details like prerequisites, reversibility, or error handling. The 100% schema coverage helps, but behavioral context is only partially covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param semantics beyond the schema: it groups field types/properties and gives an example, but does not explain parameter values in more depth than the schema already does.

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 opens with 'Create new custom fields or modify existing fields on any Salesforce object' – a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like salesforce_manage_object (objects) and salesforce_manage_field_permissions (FLS), and lists supported field types.

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?

Context is clear: it's for creating/updating fields, with examples. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as salesforce_manage_field_permissions, so it misses the top tier.

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