Update Record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool updates an existing record, which implies mutation, but does not disclose what happens if the sys_id is invalid, whether partial updates are supported, whether the operation is idempotent, or any authorization requirements. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple CRUD tool, with no wasted words or redundant elaboration.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and the input schema fully documents parameters; an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks behavioral context around error handling, record existence, or partial update semantics, and with no annotations this leaves some ambiguity. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with meaningful descriptions (table_name, sys_id, data), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The schema already explains that 'data' is a key-value payload of fields to update. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing record in a ServiceNow table'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_record, delete_record, and get_record. The scope is unambiguous and the action is immediately clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of the record), exclusions, or scenarios where another tool like create_record or delete_record would be more appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and sibling context.

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