Create ServiceNow Record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the baseline safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it mentions returning the sys_id and says 'use raw values' for data, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, required fields, or error handling. Given the annotations already cover the core safety aspects, the description adds some but not rich behavioral insight, meriting a mid-range score.

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 well-structured with sections for args, returns, examples, and a note. While it repeats some schema content (e.g., response_format), the examples and exclusion note are valuable and not verbose. Every section contributes to understanding, and the main purpose is front-loaded, so it earns a strong but not perfect score.

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 a generic create tool with no output schema and 3 parameters, the description provides a clear purpose, argument explanations, return value, examples, and guidance on when not to use it. It does not cover potential validation failures or mandatory-field requirements, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples (problem and task) and the guidance 'use raw values' to indicate encoding expectations, which clarifies how 'data' should be supplied. This additional context justifies a score above baseline.

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 record in any ServiceNow table' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the dedicated incident and change creation tools in the note, and the examples with problem and task tables clarify its generic applicability.

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 explicitly says 'For incidents and change requests, prefer the dedicated tools (servicenow_create_incident, servicenow_create_change)' in the note. It also provides examples for problem and task, giving clear 'when to use' guidance relative to siblings. This surpasses the baseline by naming alternatives.

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