Create OmniStudio DataRaptor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about DataRaptor's operational capabilities (Extract/Transform/Load) but does not discuss tool-level behavior like overwriting existing DataRaptors or permission requirements. This adds some value without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections for interface types and field mappings. It is somewhat long but each part contributes to understanding the tool's domain model. Front-loading the main purpose helps, and the bulleted format improves scanability.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the key parameters (interfaceType, field mappings, filterCriteria) and the domain concepts. It does not describe the return value or prerequisites (e.g., OmniStudio licensed), but given the rich annotations and schema, it is fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 71%, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains what each interfaceType does, the meaning of sourceField/targetField, dataType, and filterCriteria with examples. This compensates for the moderate coverage and gives the agent practical guidance on filling parameters correctly.

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 'Creates a DataRaptor interface for OmniStudio data transformation' with specific verb+resource. It then details the three interface types (Extract, Transform, Load), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from retrieval tools like sf_get_dataraptor.

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 explains what DataRaptors do and the three interface types, implying when this tool is appropriate (for data extraction, transformation, or loading). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., Integration Procedures) or provide 'when not to use' guidance, so usage context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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