salesforce_manage_field_permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool can grant/revoke/view permissions, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., administrative rights), potential side effects (e.g., changes to field security are immediate), reversibility, or what happens when both readable and editable are false. The description also does not clarify whether the tool is read-only for the 'view' operation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 introductory line, bullets, and numbered examples. It is slightly verbose but every part adds information, such as the examples demonstrating realistic use cases. The format makes it easy to scan and understand the tool's capabilities without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description should explain return values and parameter behavior more thoroughly. It does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, updated permissions), nor does it explain how operation interacts with readable/editable or profileNames for different operations. The examples cover basic scenarios but leave gaps for edge cases like bulk updates or viewing permissions without specific profiles. Overall, the description is not complete enough for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping grant/revoke to readable/editable and providing examples like 'read-only access' (editable=false, readable=true). However, it introduces a discrepancy by mentioning 'permission sets' while the schema only provides profileNames, which could mislead users. The description does not fully clarify parameter combinations for operations like 'view' (e.g., whether profileNames is optional).

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 identifies the tool's purpose: managing Field Level Security (Field Permissions) for custom and standard fields. It lists specific operations (grant, revoke, view) and distinguishes from sibling tools like salesforce_manage_field by focusing on permissions rather than field definitions. Examples further clarify the scope and usage.

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 usage context through bullets and examples, such as granting System Administrator access, giving read-only access, and checking profile access. It implies when to use the tool (for permission changes) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. No alternative tools are referenced, so it lacks explicit differentiation but still offers clear context.

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