servicenow_insert_project_tasksCreate a ServiceNow project with associated tasks, including nested child tasks, dates, dependencies, and external IDs.
Creates a project and associated project tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| child_tasks | No | ||
| external_id | No | ||
| dependencies | No | ||
| short_description | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether re-running duplicates the project, what permissions are needed, or what the call returns. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this sentence contributes no behavioral context at all.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so there is no waste to cut. However, for a six-parameter recursive write tool it is sized far below what is useful, so conciseness here shades into under-specification.
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?
No output schema exists, and the input schema is complex (nested recursive task objects, 0% description coverage), yet the description provides only one sentence. It never explains the relationship between the top-level fields and child_tasks, what external_id is for, or what happens on partial failure — all things the schema and annotations do not cover.
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 six parameters, including a recursive child_tasks structure, dependencies, and external_id, so the description carries the full burden. It names only 'project' and 'project tasks' and explains none of the parameters' meaning, format, or interaction (e.g. date formats, how dependencies are expressed, recursion limits).
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 gives a concrete verb ('Creates') and two concrete resources ('a project and associated project tasks'), which resolves the ambiguity in the tool name about whether it inserts tasks only or a whole project. It does not, however, distinguish itself from any of the many other create/insert siblings in the list.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether the project must already exist), and no reference to alternatives such as create_change_request_task or add_table_record. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.