create_ci

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. 'Create' implies a write operation, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, required 'name' field behavior, or what happens on creation (e.g., generated sys_id). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

While the output schema exists and parameter coverage is complete, the description lacks essential context for a write tool: no usage guidance, no mention of required fields (though schema covers it), and no explanation of how it differs from create_record. It is minimally viable but not fully complete given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'data' and 'class_name' described. The schema already explains that data must include 'name' and that class_name defaults to 'cmdb_ci'. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema, matching the baseline of 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 'Create a new CMDB configuration item' clearly specifies the verb (create) and resource (CMDB configuration item), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_record (generic record creation) and update_ci (modification). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 over alternatives. The description does not mention that create_record should be used for non-CMDB tables or that update_ci is for existing items. It lacks any context about prerequisites or preferred scenarios.

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