execute_table_operation

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 and does so comprehensively. It explicitly warns about data modification in sandbox environments, mentions auto-limiting of large results, provides pagination advice, and describes file placeholder support. This covers critical behavioral aspects like safety, performance, and data handling that aren't in the schema.

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 efficiently structured with key information front-loaded (CRUD operations, API type, supported methods) followed by important warnings and usage tips. The use of emojis helps visually organize critical points. While slightly dense due to the tool's complexity, every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complex tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about behavioral traits, safety warnings, and usage patterns. It covers the tool's scope, data modification implications, performance considerations, and file handling. The main gap is the lack of output format description, but given the tool's complexity, the description does remarkably well.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about query syntax, batch operations, and file placeholders, but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 tool performs 'CRUD operations on ServiceNow tables via Table API' with specific HTTP methods (GET/POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE) and mentions query syntax and batch operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'execute_background_script' and 'execute_updateset_operation' by focusing on table operations rather than scripts or updatesets.

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 clear context for usage with warnings like '⚠️ SANDBOX ONLY - reads/modifies data' and guidance on handling large datasets ('Use pagination for big datasets'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, though the different focus areas (tables vs. scripts vs. updatesets) are implied.

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