update_record

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

Annotations already provide key traits (idempotent, non-destructive, open world). The description adds valuable behavioral context: a permission requirement (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and the dry_run feature, which previews changes without writing. This exceeds what annotations offer.

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 description is two sentences with no extraneous content. The first sentence states the core purpose and a key requirement; the second introduces the dry_run feature. Information is front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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?

While the description covers purpose and a key option, it lacks output format details (no output schema) and usage guidance among many sibling update tools. For a generic mutation tool, this is adequate but incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand behavior and results.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds the authorization condition (WRITE_ENABLED=true) not present in the schema, enhancing parameter understanding. It does not elaborate on the fields object structure beyond 'key-value pairs', but the added context justifies a higher score above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing record in any ServiceNow table, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools (e.g., update_incident), which diminishes clarity for an AI agent choosing between generic and specialized tools.

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?

The description lacks guidance on when to use this generic tool versus dedicated update tools like update_incident. It only mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and the dry_run option, but no context on alternatives or scenarios.

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