sn_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: every write requires confirm=true, writes are journalled, and they can be reverted. It does not detail per-action effects or auth requirements, but it substantially improves the safety profile.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by action meanings and the confirm/journaling safety rule.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Annotations cover the destructive safety profile and the description adds the confirm/journaling workflow, but for a six-parameter write tool with 0% schema description coverage, the missing action-specific parameter guidance leaves the definition only partially complete.

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 six parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains action values and the confirm requirement, plus that batch applies many operations in one request, but it says nothing about table, fields, sys_id, or the structure of operations, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Change ServiceNow records," and enumerates the supported write actions. It distinguishes this from read-oriented siblings implicitly through the write/change framing, but does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 implies this is the tool for writes by enumerating create/update/delete/batch and notes that batch is for many operations in one request. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings such as sn_read or sn_journal.

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