create_record

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description adds useful context: the WRITE_ENABLED=true permission requirement and the dry_run=true preview behavior. This discloses the need for write privileges and a safety valve for testing, which annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no extraneous information. Every word earns its place, including the permission caveat and dry-run note.

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 simple create tool with high schema coverage, the description adequately covers the action, permission, and dry-run option. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and the description is otherwise complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (table, fields, dry_run), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds slight value by explaining dry_run's purpose ('preview the resolved payload'), but does not enrich table or fields beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'a new record in any ServiceNow table,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling update/delete/query tools. The mention of 'any ServiceNow table' signals generality, which differentiates it from specialized creates like create_incident.

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 implies usage for generic record creation across tables and notes the prerequisite WRITE_ENABLED=true. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like bulk_create_records or specialized create tools, but the generic scope is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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