update_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite and the dry_run preview behavior (before→after diff without writing). No contradiction with annotations, though failure modes and side effects are not disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the key option. Every word earns its place – no fluff or repetition of parameter names.

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 generic update tool with 4 documented parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the important dry_run option. It lacks error conditions or return format, but these aren't necessary given the schema and annotations. A solid, adequate description.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; dry_run is already documented in the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing record in any ServiceNow table' – a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings like create_record, delete_record, get_record by focusing on updating existing records, and the open scope differentiates it from specialized update_incident, update_asset, etc.

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?

Provides clear context: this is a generic update tool for any table, requires WRITE_ENABLED=true, and offers dry_run=true for preview. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scoping and permission note give clear context. Not a 5 because no explicit 'use this instead of X' or 'don't use when Y'.

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