delete_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: the WRITE_ENABLED requirement and the dry_run preview option, which inform the agent about safety and prerequisites. It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence contributes value (scope, prerequisite, dry_run safety). No redundant or filler content 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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the operation, the prerequisite, and a safety mechanism. It does not describe the return value on successful deletion or error cases, but given that annotations and schema handle the safety profile and parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple delete operation.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all three parameters (table, sys_id, dry_run) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning for the parameters; it merely restates the dry_run concept already present in the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a record from any ServiceNow table'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_record, get_record, and create_record. The scope ('any ServiceNow table') makes the tool's function immediately understandable.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and explains the dry_run parameter as a preview mechanism. It implies when to use the tool (to delete a record) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list contains no other delete tool, making the usage context clear.

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