Add table record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing error behavior (MissingParameterError when table/data are absent, ParameterError on JSON serialization failure) and implies table/data are effectively required despite the schema marking nothing required. It does not address permissions, retries, or the side effects of creating records.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by orderly Sphinx-style field/return/raises blocks. It is a bit boilerplate-heavy for a tool whose usable surface is only two parameters, but every line is structured and none is wasted prose.

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?

With 16 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It hints at the return ('parsed Pydantic model with information about the added record') and documents raised errors, but leaves the bulk of the input surface and any table-name conventions unaddressed.

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% and there are 16 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them. It documents only two (table and data) and says nothing about the fourteen ServiceNow sysparm_* / api_parameters / name_value_pairs options, leaving their purpose and valid values 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 and resource: 'Add a new record to the specified table.' The name and description clearly distinguish it from update_table_record, patch_table_record, and delete_table_record in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. There is no mention of when to prefer this over servicenow_update_table_record or servicenow_api_request, nor any prerequisites such as required table access or schema knowledge.

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