Update set preview

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, which is somewhat at odds with the word 'preview'; the description never explains why this is not read-only (likely it launches an async preview operation tracked by progress_id). It does add useful error behavior (MissingParameterError) and return type, but omits side effects, permissions, and async semantics.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which earns its place. The Sphinx-style :param:/:type:/:return:/:raises: block is boilerplate that partly restates rather than adds, though it is not bloated overall.

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 tool with 43 parameters, no output schema, and a non-read-only annotation, the description leaves major questions open: what the other 42 parameters do, whether the operation mutates state, and how progress is polled. It is inadequate for the stated complexity.

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 coverage is 0% across 43 parameters, and the description documents only remote_update_set_id, leaving 42 parameters (rollback_id, auto_preview, progress_id, etc.) entirely unexplained. The one documented parameter is accurate but far from compensating 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 description names a specific verb and resource ("Previews an update set") and states the two outcomes: conflict checking and progress information. It is clear enough to distinguish from commit/retrieve siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to call this versus siblings like servicenow_update_set_commit or servicenow_update_set_retrieve, and no prerequisites or sequencing hints. The 'preview before commit' workflow an agent would need is left implicit.

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