Create cmdb instance

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 that a single CI is created and can carry inbound/outbound relations, but it omits whether relations are created as side effects, what permissions are needed, and what happens on duplicate CIs.

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 docstring is short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the :type: lines are pure redundancy with the schema's declared types and consume roughly half the text without adding information. The structure is conventional but not optimized for an agent reader.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no required fields, the description is too thin: seven parameters are unexplained, relation-creation semantics are unstated, and there is no mention of what the response contains beyond ':rtype: Response'.

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 12 parameters, and the description documents only 5 of them. Worse, its parameter notes just restate static types already in the schema (str, dict, list) rather than adding meaning like allowed class names or attribute formatting, and it never mentions data, sys_id, rel_sys_id, api_parameters, or the sysparm_* parameters.

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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a single configuration item (CI).' The word 'single' usefully distinguishes it from bulk ingestion (servicenow_ingest_cmdb_data), but it never explicitly names that or the update/patch/relation siblings as alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this versus servicenow_update_cmdb_instance, servicenow_patch_cmdb_instance, servicenow_create_cmdb_relation, or servicenow_ingest_cmdb_data. The docstring merely lists parameters, so an agent must infer the use case entirely.

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