salesforce_manage_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that changes affect metadata and require proper permissions, which is useful. However, it does not describe potential side effects, reversibility, or return values, which is a 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 concise and front-loaded, using bullets and examples to convey the key operations efficiently. Every sentence adds value, and the note about permissions is a relevant inclusion. It is well-structured 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 3 enums, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify which parameters apply to create vs. update, nor does it explain conditional dependencies or return value. The schema covers parameter descriptions, but the overall operational context could be richer.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions fields/relationships/settings at a high level. No parameter syntax or conditional guidance is added.

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 creates or updates custom objects in Salesforce, with distinct sub-actions (Create/Update) and examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like salesforce_manage_field (fields) and salesforce_dml_records (records).

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 using the tool on objects and gives examples, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like salesforce_manage_field. The note about metadata changes implies the appropriate use case, but exclusions are not explicit.

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