create_incident

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. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether a record is stored immediately, if it triggers notifications, or if any validation occurs). The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent to infer what the tool returns.

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 and well-structured, with a clear introductory sentence followed by a bullet-like list of parameters. Each line is informative and earns its place. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has 7 parameters (1 required) and a high-complexity domain (incident creation in ServiceNow), the description covers parameter semantics but lacks guidance on return values (despite having an output schema) and behavioral details (e.g., whether the incident is immediately persisted, if any side effects occur). It is adequate for basic creation but leaves gaps for a thorough agent.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does reasonably well. It explains 'urgency' values as '1 (High), 2 (Medium), 3 (Low)', and 'impact' similarly, and provides example categories like 'software', 'hardware', 'network'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles. However, it could clarify the format for 'assignment_group' and 'caller_id' (e.g., 'sys_id preferred') for even better clarity.

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 new ServiceNow incident', using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('ServiceNow incident'). The parameter descriptions further clarify the fields involved, and the tool name 'create_incident' is distinct from siblings like 'get_incident' or 'update_incident', so no confusion arises.

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 lists parameters and their meanings, which guides basic usage, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, when to create an incident versus update one via 'update_incident' is left implied. There is no 'when not to use' or alternative guidance provided.

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