Upload ServiceNow attachment

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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the base64 input format and record-targeting behavior, but does not disclose whether repeated uploads create duplicates, size limits, permission requirements, or side effects associated with openWorldHint=true. No contradiction exists.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and key parameters. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 core operation is clear, but there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what the tool returns upon success/failure, any prerequisites, or potential side effects. Given the seven-parameter schema and openWorldHint, slightly more context would help an agent confidently invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the plan-mode 'apply' nuance and base64 encoding of content. The description reinforces table + sys_id as the record locator but adds little beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clear verb ('Attach'), a specific resource ('a file'), and the target ('a record identified by table + sys_id'), making the tool's action unambiguous. It is naturally distinguishable from sibling attachment tools like get_attachment, download_attachment, and 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?

The description clearly implies the use case: upload an attachment to an existing ServiceNow record using its table and sys_id. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the phrasing gives enough context that an agent can route to this tool for uploads.

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