salesforce_manage_field

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. It mentions that the tool 'automatically grants Field Level Security to System Administrator (or specified profiles)', which is valuable behavioral context about permissions. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a field management tool with no annotations, this leaves significant 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 for different parameter categories, clear examples, and a specific note about the grantAccessTo parameter. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value: the opening statement defines purpose, bullet points categorize parameters, examples illustrate usage, and the note clarifies default behavior. No wasted words.

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 (18 parameters, field creation/modification operations) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose, parameter categories, and permission behavior, but doesn't address error conditions, response format, or detailed behavioral constraints. For a tool with this complexity and no structured safety/behavior annotations, more completeness would be expected.

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 documents all 18 parameters thoroughly. The description adds meaningful context by grouping parameters conceptually ('Field Types', 'Properties', 'Relationships') and providing examples that illustrate how parameters work together. It also clarifies the grantAccessTo parameter's default behavior. This goes beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't explain all parameter interactions.

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 ('Create new custom fields or modify existing fields') and resource ('on any Salesforce object'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like salesforce_manage_object (which likely manages objects rather than fields) and salesforce_manage_field_permissions (which manages permissions rather than field definitions). The examples further clarify the scope.

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 (creating/modifying fields with specific types and properties) and includes a note about the grantAccessTo parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., when to use salesforce_manage_field_permissions instead for permission-related tasks).

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