Delete ServiceNow record

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 that deletion may be irreversible, that permissions are required, or the plan-mode nuance where omitting apply returns a non-mutating preview. The schema's apply parameter hints at this, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is very sparse and leaves out important caveats like the plan-mode behavior, so while it is concise, it is not as informative as a top-tier description could be.

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?

The schema is rich and documents apply and instance, which helps an agent understand the mechanics. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out the destructive/preview caveat and does not clarify what response or side effects to expect. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 already provides high-coverage descriptions for all four parameters (apply, table, sys_id, instance), so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions sys_id in passing and adds no meaning about table names, the apply flag, or connection profiles beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific action (Delete), targets a concrete resource (a record in a ServiceNow table), and identifies the lookup key (sys_id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as servicenow_get_record, servicenow_update_record, and servicenow_delete_attachment.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of cases where a non-destructive operation or an attachment deletion would be more appropriate. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and title.

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