Update OmniStudio Integration Procedure

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the crucial constraint that only metadata is updated, not elements/steps, and provides the fullName construction rule (procedureName_subType). It also explains the deactivation/reactivation workflow, which is non-obvious behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence, the identifier rule in the second, and a clear workflow/alternative in the following sentences. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant or filler content.

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, four parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what fields are updatable, how the record is identified, what is explicitly out of scope (element/step changes), and the activation workflow. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 25%, but the description compensates for most parameters: procedureName and subType are explained via the fullName = procedureName_subType equation, and isActive is clarified by the explicit 'Set isActive: false to deactivate' instruction. However, the exact meaning or allowable values of subType are not fully defined, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 a specific action ('Updates an existing Integration Procedure's metadata') and explicitly identifies the resource and the fields affected (description, active status). It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools by defining the identifier scheme (procedureName + subType, fullName = procedureName_subType) and by referencing sf_activate_integration_procedure for activation.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it says to use the OmniStudio Integration Procedure Designer for element/step changes, and prescribes a workflow involving setting isActive to false, making changes, then calling sf_activate_integration_procedure. This clearly differentiates from update-only metadata changes and from activation.

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