Update table record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior detail by documenting the raised exceptions (MissingParameterError, ParameterError) and the return type, but it says nothing about the 13 sysparm_*/api_parameters fields that appear on an update tool, so the operation's full behavior remains opaque.

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 docstring is reasonably compact, but the :param:/:type: pairing duplicates information and the return/raises sections consume space that could have gone toward the undocumented parameters. It is front-loaded with the core action, which helps.

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?

Given a 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. It explains only the three core fields and omits any account of the many sysparm_* parameters, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call.

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 16 parameters exist, yet the description documents only three (table, table_record_sys_id, data). The remaining parameters (sysparm_view, sysparm_limit, sysparm_query, api_parameters, name_value_pairs, etc.) are undefined in both schema and description, which is a severe gap for an update tool whose purpose those query-style params do not obviously serve.

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 ('Fully update a record in the specified table'), and the word 'Fully' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling servicenow_patch_table_record (partial update). However, it never names that sibling or explicitly contrast the two, so the distinction is left to inference.

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 use this tool versus servicenow_patch_table_record or servicenow_add_table_record. It also provides no prerequisite or context information (e.g., that the record must already exist, or what permissions are needed), leaving the agent to 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.