create_incident

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is an idempotent operation, what happens on failure, or what the typical response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use this tool effectively.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information without any wasted words. It follows a clear subject-verb-object structure that immediately communicates the core purpose.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid incident, what fields are required beyond 'short_description', what the tool returns, or any error conditions. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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?

The description provides zero information about parameters, while the schema has 0% description coverage (the schema only has titles, not descriptions). With 10 parameters in the schema and no parameter guidance in the description, this creates a significant knowledge gap about what each parameter means and how they should be used together.

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 the action ('Create') and resource ('new incident in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other incident-related tools like 'update_incident' or 'resolve_incident' that also exist in the sibling tool list, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_incident' or 'resolve_incident' from the sibling list. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or any context about when incident creation is appropriate versus other operations.

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