Create OmniStudio Calculation Matrix

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the behavioral context of creating a matrix and mapping inputs to outputs, but does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or prerequisites. It does not contradict the annotations, and with annotations covering the safety profile, this is an adequate but not rich disclosure.

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 relatively concise with a clear opening sentence, use cases, parameter explanations, and an example. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the inaccurate row structure slightly muddies the parameter section.

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?

The description covers the purpose, key parameters, and an example, but omits required parameters like label and matrixName. It also provides conflicting row structure and does not explain return values or duplicate behavior. Without an output schema, these gaps make the description incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and 4 required fields.

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 description inaccurately describes inputVariables as a 'list of input variable names' while the schema requires an array of objects with a 'name' and optional 'dataType'. Moreover, it describes rows as '{ inputs: {...}, outputs: {...} }', but the schema defines rows as flat objects with additional string properties. These structural contradictions meaningfully mislead an agent about how to populate the parameters, outweighing the correct semantic hints about columns.

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 action ('Creates a Calculation Matrix') and explains its function (rule-based lookups, mapping input combinations to output values). It names the specific resource and provides concrete use cases (pricing, eligibility, scoring), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sf_create_calculation_procedure.

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 says it is 'useful for pricing, eligibility, scoring, and decision tables', giving clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when a Calculation Procedure would be more appropriate), so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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