Create OmniStudio Integration Procedure

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

Annotations indicate idempotent creates, non-readonly, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: runs in Apex context, can be invoked from various surfaces, uses the OmniScript metadata type with omniProcessType=IntegrationProcedure, and mentions activation behavior via isActive. No contradictions found; the description enriches the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 longer than minimal but well-structured with a clear opening, technical context, and a bulleted list of element types. Every sentence contributes useful information—the element list is redundant with the schema but adds semantic clarity. It is organized and scannable, though slightly verbose for a create tool.

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 complexity (6 parameters, many element types) and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, runtime context, invocation methods, fullName rules, element types, and activation. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but for a create operation the description is sufficiently complete to guide invocation.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the fullName construction (ProcedureName_SubType), details each element type (DataRaptor, HTTPAction, etc.) beyond the bare enum, and clarifies the isActive behavior. While 'label' and 'description' parameters lack direct explanation, the overall parameter context is significantly enriched.

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 explicitly states 'Creates an OmniStudio Integration Procedure' and elaborates on what it is ('a server-side process that orchestrates data integration without UI'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like OmniScript creation and other integration procedure tools (update/get/activate).

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 when an Integration Procedure is appropriate (server-side, no UI, invoked from OmniScripts/FlexCards/APIs). It implies a distinction from OmniScripts ('without UI') but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases. The context is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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