servicenow_create_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool. It does not state required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate records, or what the response contains. 'Create a record' is the only behavioral information given.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency. It is appropriately sized for its content but the content is thin for a mutation tool with a nested payload.

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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested free-form 'fields' object, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs to construct a valid call. It is materially inadequate for this complexity.

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 0% across two required parameters, and the description adds essentially nothing: 'any ServiceNow table' only loosely suggests what 'table' means (a table name, but which format?) and says nothing about the nested 'fields' object, which accepts arbitrary properties. This nested, unconstrained object is the highest-risk parameter and is unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (a record in a ServiceNow table), and the scope qualifier 'any ServiceNow table' distinguishes it from narrower siblings. The create/list/get/update/delete family is self-evident from the verb, though the description never names those siblings or clarifies boundaries.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus servicenow_update_record or servicenow_create_flow, nor on prerequisites such as required fields or table permissions. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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