servicenow_create_incident

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely valuable behavioral fact — the ticket is a real record visible to the service desk, not a sandbox artifact — but the sentence is cut off, so permission requirements, whether the call is idempotent, and what happens on failure are all unstated.

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 entry is short but ends mid-sentence ('...visible to the service desk as...'), which is a structural defect rather than conciseness. The one complete clause is front-loaded and useful, but the fragment leaves the definition broken.

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 annotations, no output schema, no parameters, and a truncated description leave an agent without the information needed to invoke a write operation against a live external system. The external-visibility warning is the only completeness the definition achieves.

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?

The input schema declares zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; per the 0-param baseline this sits at 4. However, the description never explains where the incident's title, description, or caller data come from, which is a notable omission for a create tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a real incident in the connected ServiceNow instance'), which separates it from servicenow_get_incident, servicenow_search_incidents, and servicenow_update_incident. The sentence is truncated mid-clause, so the full scope of what gets created is never stated.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as servicenow_update_incident or servicenow_add_comment for related actions. The agent is left to infer that 'create' means 'use this when a new ticket is needed'.

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