Activate OmniStudio Integration Procedure

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

Annotations already declare this as a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the outcome (invocability) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permissions or status transitions. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no redundant details. The second sentence is a fragment but still concise and effective.

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 relatively simple activation operation, the description covers purpose and identification, with annotations covering safety traits. It could be more complete by noting any prerequisites (e.g., the IP must exist and be in draft status), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool.

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 provides only types and constraints with 0% description coverage. The description adds the key semantic that procedureName and subType together form the composite identifier, which is helpful, but it does not explain the meaning of 'subType' or provide format examples beyond the schema's length constraints.

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 a specific action ('Activates an Integration Procedure') and the intended effect ('so it can be invoked from OmniScripts, FlexCards, and APIs'). It also distinguishes this tool from related siblings like get/update/create by specifying activation purpose and the identifier fields.

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 implies the use case (making an IP invokable) and provides context that the tool is for activation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use update_integration_procedure to modify logic instead.'

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