Servicenow Ingest Incidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses the write target (knowledge graph), the side effects (creating :Incident nodes plus :ConfigurationItem/:Person links), and the failure mode ('best-effort: returns {"ingested": None} when no engine is reachable'). It stops short of stating idempotency, batching/pagination limits, or whether repeated runs duplicate nodes.

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 action and destination are front-loaded and each sentence carries content: mechanism, graph shape, then degradation behavior. The trailing 'CONCEPT:AU-KG.ingest.enterprise-source-extractor' tag is internal taxonomy noise that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke.

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-value detail is partly off the description's plate, and the failure sentinel is still spelled out. But for a graph-mutating ingest with zero annotations, the description should say whether the operation is idempotent, whether it replaces or appends nodes, and how many incidents are pulled per call.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with params_json already documented as get_incidents filters. The description adds only the implicit link that listing uses the same ServiceNow API, so it neither compensates nor detracts; baseline 3 applies.

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 destination: it lists ServiceNow incidents and writes them as typed :Incident nodes with :affects/:assignedTo links. That distinguishes it from plain readers like servicenow_get_incidents, but it never names a sibling explicitly, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Natively ingest ... into epistemic-graph' rather than stated as a decision rule. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over servicenow_get_incidents or the sibling servicenow_ingest_cmdb_data, nor any prerequisite (engine availability, auth) framed as a selection condition.

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