Update OmniStudio FlexCard

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reads the current definition, merges changes, redeploys, automatically deactivates the card if active, and replaces field arrays entirely. While annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what the tool does, how to use it, and a critical behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded with the action and contains zero filler words.

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 moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: read-merge-redeploy, deactivation, array replacement, and partial updates. It does not describe return values or error handling, but for an update tool with strong annotations and clear sibling context, this is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of the arrays (fields, actions, states) by noting they are replaced entirely if provided, and implies all other parameters are optional. However, it does not explain dataSourceName, dataSourceType, label, or description beyond their names, leaving gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'Updates' and clearly identifies the resource as 'OmniStudio FlexCard (OmniUiCard)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_create_flexcard, sf_get_flexcard, and sf_activate_flexcard by describing the update-and-redeploy workflow.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Provide only the fields you want to change', which clarifies usage intent. It also names the alternative tool sf_activate_flexcard for reactivation after the automatic deactivation, providing both context and an exclusion.

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