Delete table record

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 description matches the declared safety profile rather than contradicting it. It adds two useful behavioral facts: the return is a parsed Pydantic response about the deletion, and a MissingParameterError is raised when table or sys_id is absent. However, it says nothing about permissions, cascading effects on related records, or what happens when the sys_id does not exist.

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 prose is short and the purpose statement is correctly front-loaded. However, the Sphinx ':type table: str' / ':rtype: Response' lines merely restate type information already present in the schema, so a meaningful share of the text does not earn its place.

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 16-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the auxiliary sysparm parameters or state that only table plus sys_id matter. It also asserts the two params are required while the schema marks nothing required and defaults everything to null, leaving the agent unsure of the real invocation contract.

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% and there are 16 parameters, yet the description only explains two of them (table and table_record_sys_id). The 14 sysparm_* / data / api_parameters / name_value_pairs parameters are undocumented everywhere, and it is not even clear why query/view/pagination parameters exist on a delete operation. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a record from the specified table'), so an agent immediately knows this is a destructive single-record operation on an arbitrary table. It is distinguishable from siblings such as servicenow_delete_attachment or servicenow_delete_incident which target fixed record types. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with servicenow_patch_table_record or servicenow_get_table_record, so it stops short of a 5.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. Given siblings like servicenow_patch_table_record, servicenow_delete_incident and servicenow_delete_problem, an agent gets no help deciding between the generic table-record deletion and the typed delete tools.

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