Patch cmdb instance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that attributes are 'replaced' rather than merged, but says nothing about permissions, side effects on relations, or error behavior for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Sphinx :type: lines merely restate types already present in the JSON schema and add length without information. The :return: line is marginally useful given no output schema exists.

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 12-parameter, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 0% schema documentation, the description is far too thin. It omits how the many query/pagination and relation parameters behave and gives no guidance on valid input combinations, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it documents only four (className, sys_id, attributes, source). Critical operational parameters such as sysparm_query, sysparm_limit, rel_sys_id, inbound_relations, outbound_relations, and data are left entirely unexplained in both schema and 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: 'Replaces attributes in the specified CI record (PATCH)'. The PATCH parenthetical signals partial-update semantics, which helps distinguish it from servicenow_update_cmdb_instance and servicenow_create_cmdb_instance. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from those close siblings, keeping it below 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 statement of when to use this tool versus servicenow_update_cmdb_instance, servicenow_patch_table_record, or servicenow_create_cmdb_instance. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about valid CI states for patching. The reader must infer usage entirely from the name.

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