Update cmdb instance

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

Annotations already declare openWorld, idempotent, non-readOnly, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful PUT/replace nuance and 'Data attributes to replace,' but it does not state whether unspecified attributes are cleared, what authorization is needed, or what happens on partial input.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the rest is Sphinx-style :param:/:type: boilerplate that repeats the schema's parameter names rather than adding meaning. Reasonable size, but roughly half the text earns little.

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 mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and no required-parameter guidance, the description is too thin. It omits relation parameters, query/paging parameters, and any indication of the response shape, so an agent cannot safely call it without guessing.

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 only documents 4 of them (className, sys_id, attributes, source) via docstring tags. It leaves data, rel_sys_id, inbound_relations, outbound_relations, sysparm_limit/offset/query and api_parameters entirely unexplained.

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 ('Updates the specified CI record') and clarifies the HTTP verb as PUT, which distinguishes full-replacement semantics. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious siblings servicenow_patch_cmdb_instance or servicenow_update_table_record, so an agent must open schemas to choose among them.

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 at all: nothing says when to prefer this PUT-based update over servicenow_patch_cmdb_instance or servicenow_update_table_record, and no prerequisites (permissions, required sys_id/className pairing) are stated. Only the implicit 'PUT' hint suggests a full-replace use case.

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