salesforce_manage_field_permissions

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 operations (grant, revoke, view, bulk update) but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible), rate limits, or error handling. The examples hint at usage but don't fully describe behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The bullet points and examples are relevant but could be more streamlined; some redundancy exists between the bullets and examples. Overall, it's efficient with little waste.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, and integration with sibling tools. For a mutation-heavy tool with no annotations, more context on permissions and side effects would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing operations (grant, revoke, view) and mentioning profiles, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Manage Field Level Security (Field Permissions) for custom and standard fields.' It specifies the exact resource (field permissions) and actions (grant, revoke, view, bulk update), distinguishing it from sibling tools like salesforce_manage_field or salesforce_manage_object which handle different Salesforce resources.

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 implied usage through examples (e.g., 'Grant System Administrator access to a field'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like salesforce_manage_field or salesforce_manage_object. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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