Activate OmniStudio FlexCard

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the internal process ('Reads the existing FlexCard definition and redeploys it with isActive=true') and the outcome (visibility on Lightning pages and Experience Cloud). This goes beyond the basic annotation hints without contradicting them.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose, followed by a clarifying mechanism and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the primary purpose, the effect, and a key prerequisite. Annotations provide safety and idempotency context. It could mention what happens if the card is already active, but the idempotentHint mitigates that gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 fully covers the single parameter cardName with a clear description ('API name of the FlexCard to activate'). The description adds the prerequisite that the card must already exist, but this is more of a usage guideline than parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Activates an OmniStudio FlexCard') and the effect ('visible on Lightning pages and Experience Cloud sites'). It also explains the mechanism (reads existing definition and redeploys with isActive=true). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_flexcard (creation) and sf_update_flexcard (modification).

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 contextual guidance: the card must already exist and be created with sf_create_flexcard, implying this tool is for subsequent activation rather than initial creation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sf_update_flexcard or state when not to use it.

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