Insert import set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing two validation failures (missing data/table, JSON serialization failure), but says nothing about duplicate-insert behavior or the fact that the return is a parsed Pydantic model beyond 'Response containing...'.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the :raises: lines earn their place, but the ':type table: str' / ':rtype: Response' lines merely restate schema information in Sphinx boilerplate that an agent gains nothing from.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description leaves too much open: how the target import set is identified, what columns data must contain, and what happens when the same record is inserted twice are all unstated.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it explains only two of three parameters (table as 'the name of the table associated with the import set', data as a dict of field values). The critical identifier 'import_set_sys_id' is never mentioned, even though the prose says 'the specified import set' without explaining how it is specified.

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 description names a specific verb and resource: 'Insert a new record into the specified import set.' This cleanly distinguishes it from servicenow_get_import_set (read) and servicenow_insert_multiple_import_sets (bulk), though it never actually says what differentiates it from the multiple-insert sibling.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over servicenow_insert_multiple_import_sets, servicenow_add_table_record, or servicenow_insert_cost_plans. Prerequisites (an existing import set, credentials) are not mentioned, only the failure mode once called without arguments.

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