Import OmniStudio Component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source and rename option but doesn't explain behavior on existing components, overwrite semantics, or the effect of the activate parameter. The inaccurate parameter names further muddy expectations.

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 first sentence is concise and informative, but the subsequent parameter list is redundant (since the schema already describes parameters) and inaccurate. It does not earn its place and detracts from the overall structure.

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?

As a write operation with no output schema, the description should explain import behavior, prerequisites, and consequences. It only mentions the source and rename, omitting details about whether the import creates or updates, what happens if the component exists, and the activate parameter. The missing behavior and inaccurate parameter list leave significant gaps.

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 schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the description should add minimal extra value. However, it introduces mismatched names (exportedJson, newComponentName) instead of the actual parameter names (jsonDefinition, newName), and lists component types not present in the schema enum. This actively misleads rather than clarifies.

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 tool imports an OmniStudio component from previously exported JSON, which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from create tools. The mention of the source format and optional rename adds clarity, though the subsequent parameter list introduces some confusion.

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 implies use after exporting with sf_export_omnistudio_component, giving a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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