create_record

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does reveal a key trait: 'No table restrictions — the PDI is the sandbox,' which tells the agent the tool is safe for a sandbox and works universally. However, it does not disclose side effects of creating records on certain tables (e.g., triggering business rules) or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds usage context and the sandbox note. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 create tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to choose and invoke it: what it does, when to use it, and a safety note about the PDI. It lacks explicit return-value info, but with no output schema this is not required for selection.

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 schema fully describes both parameters with examples ('sys_script', 'sys_ws_definition') and field value types. The description adds example table types, but these are already present in the schema. The 'fields' parameter is thoroughly described in the schema, so the description adds no unique semantic value 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 clearly states 'Create a new record on any ServiceNow table' — a specific verb and resource. It then lists concrete example tables (Business Rules, Script Includes, Scripted REST APIs), which distinguishes it from update/delete/query siblings.

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 phrase 'Use this to deploy solutions' provides clear usage context, with a list of typical table types. It does not explicitly contrast with update_record or delete_record, but the create verb makes the intended use obvious. No exclusion criteria are stated, but the context is sufficient.

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