create_servicenow_notification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create', implying a write operation, but omits critical details: whether the integration becomes active immediately, if it sends a test event, any side effects, or if duplicate names are rejected. The agent lacks understanding of the tool's impact.

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 extremely brief (one sentence), which aids conciseness but sacrifices valuable information. It front-loads the core purpose but fails to include any additional context that could be presented concisely. Adequate but not optimal; more detail could be added without verbosity.

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 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the integration's purpose in broader workflows, what happens after creation, or any limitations. Compared to sibling tools that may have richer descriptions, this one leaves significant gaps.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'ServiceNow password', 'Event severities to include'). The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given full schema coverage. Score at baseline 3.

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 the resource ('ServiceNow notification integration'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like create_email_notification or create_opsgenie_notification, as it does not explain what distinguishes a ServiceNow integration from others.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., needing a ServiceNow account), or scenarios where other notification integrations are preferred. Without this, an AI agent cannot correctly decide when to invoke this tool.

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