servicenow_delete_attachmentDelete an attachment from a ServiceNow record. Specify the table name, record sys_id, and file name to remove unwanted or outdated files.
Invoke the delete_attachment operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| sys_id | No | ||
| file_name | No | ||
| table_name | No | ||
| content_type | No | ||
| table_sys_id | No | ||
| encryption_context | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top of that — no statement about permanence, permissions required, or side effects on parent records — but it does not contradict the annotations either.
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?
Extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single sentence carries no information load, so there is nothing to front-load. Brevity here is a deficiency, not an efficiency.
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?
A destructive, open-world delete with seven undocumented, all-optional-looking parameters, no output schema, and no description of targeting logic. For an irreversible operation this leaves the agent unable to construct a correct call or understand what will be removed.
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?
Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no enum or format hints. The description does not name a single parameter, so an agent has no idea whether sys_id, table_name, table_sys_id, file_name, content_type, encryption_context or data is required to target the attachment, or which combination is valid.
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?
"Invoke the delete_attachment operation" is a tautology that restates the tool name and title without stating the resource being acted on, the target system, or how it differs from siblings like servicenow_delete_table_record or servicenow_get_attachment. An agent learns nothing beyond what the name already says.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. It does not explain when to delete via attachment versus a generic table-record delete, nor what identifiers are needed to locate the attachment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.