salesforce_manage_object

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 does well by stating that 'Changes affect metadata and require proper permissions,' which reveals important behavioral traits about impact and authorization needs. However, it doesn't mention other critical aspects like whether operations are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing data when modifying objects.

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 helpful, though the note about permissions could be integrated more seamlessly. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly more polished.

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 a metadata mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose, basic usage, and permission requirements, but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or comprehensive behavioral traits. Given the complexity, it should do more to compensate for the missing structured data.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'fields, relationships, and settings' for create operations and 'settings, labels, sharing model' for update operations, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what's in the parameter descriptions.

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 objects or modify existing ones') and identifies the resource ('in Salesforce'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on object-level metadata operations rather than data manipulation (salesforce_dml_records), querying (salesforce_query_records), or field-level management (salesforce_manage_field).

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 about when to use this tool ('Create new custom objects or modify existing ones') and mentions prerequisites ('require proper permissions'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use salesforce_manage_field instead for field-level changes).

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