Export OmniStudio Component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format ('JSON-serialized XML string') and the OmniScript naming convention, but it also lists CalculationMatrix and CalculationProcedure as supported componentTypes while the schema enum omits them, creating conflicting behavioral guidance.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter notes are helpful but partially redundant with the schema descriptions, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value ('JSON-serialized XML string'). Annotations cover safety, and the schema documents all parameters. Minor gaps include error behavior and the componentType enum inconsistency, but overall the description is adequate for a read-only export tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful 'Type_SubType_Language' format hint for componentName, which the schema lacks. However, the componentType list in the description contradicts the schema enum by including CalculationMatrix and CalculationProcedure, undermining reliability.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Exports an OmniStudio component's metadata as a JSON string,' and names concrete use cases (backup, version control, migration). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_import_omnistudio_component, sf_get_omniscript, and the various create/update tools.

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 states explicit contexts for use: 'for backup, version control, or migration to another org.' It does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, stopping short of a 5, but the intended usage is clear.

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