Insert cost plans

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds no context on top of them — no note that the operation is non-idempotent so repeated calls may create duplicates, no auth or permission requirements, no indication of what is returned or whether the array is inserted atomically.

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 five-word sentence with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness for a mutation tool taking a structured array payload. There is no front-loaded information beyond the name itself.

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 non-idempotent write tool with an opaque nested array parameter, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description should carry nearly the full explanatory burden — and it carries none. An agent cannot construct a valid `plans` item from anything provided.

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% for both parameters. The required `plans` array is typed only as an opaque array of free-form objects, and `params_json` defaults to "{}", yet the description says nothing about the expected shape of a plan record or the role of params_json. It fully fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

"Creates cost plans." is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name/annotation title ("Insert cost plans"), swapping a synonym for the verb. It gives no scope, target system context, or distinction from the many other create/insert siblings such as servicenow_add_table_record or servicenow_insert_import_set.

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 guidance at all: it does not say what a cost plan is, which ServiceNow module it belongs to, or when an agent should prefer this over generic record insertion. Nothing is misleading, but nothing routes the agent either.

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