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

Discloses the non-obvious two-phase behavior — no send without confirm, preview returned instead — which is exactly the kind of information annotations cannot express. It also explains the externally visible vs internal side effect of the two modes, complementing destructiveHint=true rather than repeating it.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work, with the core action first and the confirmation mechanic last. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be documented, and the description still covers the one surprising return case (a preview instead of an action). For a mutation tool with 5 params, the agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the visible/internal distinction of the type values and the gating semantics of confirm. It says nothing about remember or which sys_id source to use beyond the schema's own note, so it does not add full param context.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (comment or work note) scoped to a ServiceNow incident, and immediately disambiguates the two flavors by visibility. An agent can distinguish it from servicenow_update_incident without opening another schema.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: call without confirm to preview, pass confirm=true to actually add. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. update_incident) for editing an existing record, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing, but the usage context is clear.

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