create_kpi

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write operation. The description's '[Write]' tag merely duplicates that annotation without adding further behavioral context such as side effects, required permissions, or what happens to existing data. It adds no new information beyond the structured data.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The '[Write]' tag is arguably redundant, but the structure is efficient. It could have packed more useful information in the same space, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 mutation tool with six parameters and no output schema, this description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created KPI object or an ID), any special behavior, or how it fits with sibling tools like create_pa_indicator. Given the tool's complexity, the description provides insufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly with confidence.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (name, unit, field, table, aggregate, conditions) have descriptions. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics, but the schema already carries that burden, making a baseline score of 3 appropriate. No additional insight is provided in the description.

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) and resource (Key Performance Indicator), with an additional scoping phrase 'from ServiceNow data' that adds context beyond the tool name. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool 'create_pa_indicator', which likely overlaps in purpose, so it misses the top score.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer create_kpi over create_pa_indicator, or any other contextual usage direction. The description leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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