Delete incident

Does 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 by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: incident_id is effectively required and a MissingParameterError is raised without it (the schema marks zero required params). It says nothing about irreversibility, cascade effects on related records, or authorization needs, so it adds only modest value.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the docstring is short with no padding. The :return:/:rtype: boilerplate adds little, but with no output schema in play it is not pure waste, and the docstring is not bloated relative to what it conveys.

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 destructive, 15-parameter, zero-coverage tool with no output schema, this definition is far too thin. It covers a single parameter and a one-line return statement while leaving the mutation's side effects, permission requirements, and the meaning of the other fourteen parameters unaddressed.

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 15 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It documents only incident_id (with type and required-ness), leaving data, api_parameters, name_value_pairs, and the ten sysparm_* filtering/pagination parameters entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an incident record'), so an agent knows exactly what is happening. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling deletion tools (servicenow_delete_table_record, servicenow_delete_problem, servicenow_delete_change_request), which matters here because an agent could plausibly confuse deleting an incident with the generic table-record delete.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., permissions, whether the incident must be closed first), and no routing to alternatives such as servicenow_update_incident or the generic table-record delete. The only precondition-like statement is the :raises: note, which covers a missing argument rather than usage context.

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