Add ci lifecycle action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety basics are covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that - no indication of what the action does to a CI's state, whether it is reversible, or what preconditions must hold.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

For a 7-parameter, non-idempotent mutation with an openWorld hint, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine required preconditions, parameter meaning, or the effect of the call from this text alone.

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 0% across 7 parameters, and several (opsLabel, leaseTime, oldOpsLabels, oldActionNames, requestorId) are opaque, non-self-explanatory names. The description's mention of 'action' and 'list of CIs' loosely maps to actionName/sysIds but leaves the other five parameters entirely unexplained.

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 (adds) and resource (a CI lifecycle action to a list of CIs), which identifies the operation clearly. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like servicenow_delete_ci_lifecycle_action or the servicenow_check_ci_lifecycle_* validators, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The sibling set contains explicit precondition validators (check_ci_lifecycle_compat_actions, check_ci_lifecycle_not_allowed_action, check_ci_lifecycle_requestor_valid), and the description gives no hint that these should be consulted first.

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