Create Incident

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by stating the return format ('Returns: Created incident with number and sys_id') and highlighting the flexible 'additional_fields' parameter, which aligns with the openWorldHint. It does not contradict annotations, though it omits potential side effects like notifications or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a well-structured argument list and return note. It is somewhat redundant with the schema but remains appropriately sized for 12 parameters; every listed item conveys some additional context, such as examples or required-field designation.

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 complexity, the description is complete: it identifies the required parameter, enumerates all optional parameters with meaningful examples, and states the return value. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives and does not mention error scenarios, but those are not essential for a create operation with exhaustive schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by providing concrete category examples ('network', 'hardware', 'software', 'inquiry') and clarifying short_description as 'One-line summary' and caller_id as 'sys_id or username of the caller/requester'. These details go slightly beyond schema descriptions, aiding correct parameter selection.

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 opens with 'Create a new ServiceNow incident,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like servicenow_update_incident or servicenow_create_record. It unambiguously states the tool's primary function.

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 when to use the tool (to create an incident) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention that generic record creation should use servicenow_create_record, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The sibling context makes the purpose clear, but there is no direct usage instruction.

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