sn_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions using the Table API, creating a record, and returning the created record with sys_id. It does not detail error handling or rate limits, but for a simple create operation, it is adequately transparent.

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 concise, including three clear examples without unnecessary text. It is well-structured with examples on separate lines, making it 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?

Given no output schema, the description explicitly states the return value ('Returns the created record including its sys_id'), which is sufficient. All key aspects of the tool's behavior are covered.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds examples that illustrate parameter usage but does not significantly augment the schema meaning. Baseline 3 due to high coverage.

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 record in any ServiceNow table via the Table API'. Verb and resource are specific, and it effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sn_read, sn_update, sn_delete.

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 provides examples for different tables (incident, sc_task, sys_user, custom), implying usage contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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