create_ui_policy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and openWorldHint=true (side effects). The description adds a critical behavioral constraint: the tool requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true to function. This is valuable transparency beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed side effects.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and a key requirement. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and the context of a complex platform (ServiceNow), the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'control field behavior dynamically' entails, nor does it provide examples or mention potential side effects. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth for a tool that modifies system behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool's description does not add any additional semantics or context for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('UI Policy'), and its purpose ('to control field behavior dynamically'). It also includes a key prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'). This distinguishes the tool from other 'create_*' tools in the sibling list by specifying the exact artifact being created.

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?

The description mentions a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_ui_action' or 'create_catalog_ui_policy'. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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