Update OmniStudio OmniScript

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

It discloses a key side-effect beyond the annotations: the script will be deactivated if currently active, and tells the agent how to recover. This is important behavioral context not captured by readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, or idempotentHint, and does not contradict the 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 compact and front-loaded: one clear sentence for purpose, one note for critical caveats and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, and 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 six parameters, annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description provides everything needed for safe invocation: identity key, updatable properties, scope limitation, destructive side-effect warning, and reactivation path. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the description compensates by mapping all parameters: type, subType, and language are identifiers, while description, 'LWC mode', and 'embeddable flag' correspond to the optional property parameters. This gives the agent full semantic understanding without relying on sparse schema descriptions.

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 ('Updates') and names the exact resource ('existing OmniScript's metadata properties') plus the property fields and identifier fields. It also distinguishes this tool from element/step editing by stating it updates only the container metadata.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance ('element/step editing is best done in the OmniScript Designer') and names the alternative for reactivation ('reactivate with sf_activate_omniscript'). This clearly directs the agent to appropriate use and sibling tools.

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