Activate OmniStudio OmniScript

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds context that activation enables launching from specific surfaces, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as versioning implications or whether activation can be reverted. It neither contradicts the annotations nor adds significant behavioral detail beyond 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and outcome; the second explains the identifier. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and identification. Combined with the annotations (non-destructive, idempotent), the agent has enough context to decide when to invoke it. It could mention what happens upon activation (e.g., return value, version behavior), but given the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 basic descriptions for type and subType, but language only has a default value with no description. The description's statement 'Identified by Type + SubType + Language' adds meaning by clarifying that these three parameters together form a composite identifier, which is useful. However, it does not provide examples or explain valid values, so it only partially compensates for the schema's gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('activates') and clearly identifies the resource ('OmniScript') and the outcome (can be launched from FlexCards, Experience Cloud, or standalone pages). It also specifies the unique identifier (Type + SubType + Language), which distinguishes this tool from sibling activation tools like sf_activate_flow and sf_activate_flexcard.

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 usage: use this tool when you need to make an OmniScript launchable from those surfaces. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites (e.g., the OmniScript must exist). The context is implied rather than clearly contrasted with sibling tools.

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