Create OmniStudio OmniScript

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing key behavioral traits: the script is created inactive, the fullName is derived as Type_SubType_Language, and isLwcEnabled deploys as a Lightning Web Component. It also sets expectations that complex configuration requires the designer. These details add significant transparency about side effects and output naming, even though annotations already indicate mutation and open-world behavior. No contradictions found.

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 moderately sized but every sentence carries useful information. It opens with a crisp summary, then adds naming, inactive status, designer guidance, flag explanations, and a next-step pointer. No redundant or filler content; the structure is logical and front-loaded.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description covers most context: creation state, naming, flags, and activation next step. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., an ID or fullName) or potential errors like duplicate fullName. The naming convention partially compensates by allowing users to infer the identifier, but an explicit return value mention would make it 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?

With 78% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the fullName derivation from type/subType/language and clarifying the practical effect of isLwcEnabled and isOmniScriptEmbeddable. This supplements the schema's descriptions, particularly around naming, which is not explicit in the schema. A score of 4 reflects the added value beyond the high baseline coverage.

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 what the tool does: 'Creates an OmniStudio OmniScript — a guided interaction flow for collecting data or performing processes.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the script is created inactive and by directing users to sf_activate_omniscript for the next step. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from related tools like 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 provides clear lifecycle guidance: it notes that complex element configuration should be finalized in the OmniStudio Designer after creation and explicitly points to sf_activate_omniscript for activation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sf_update_omniscript or sf_get_omniscript, so the 'when not to use' aspect is implied rather than stated. Still, the activation pointer and designer note give strong contextual usage guidance.

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