servicenow_update_incident

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

The description claims the tool 'updates fields' but the input schema has zero properties, meaning no way to specify which incident or what values. This contradicts expected behavior and provides no insight into side effects, overwrite vs merge semantics, or return behavior.

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?

A single sentence of 12 words that immediately states the purpose and key fields. No redundancy or filler; front-loaded for quick parsing.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description fails to specify how to identify the incident (e.g., sys_id, number), valid values for the listed fields, or that no parameters are accepted. The absence of output schema and behavioral details leaves the agent without enough information for correct invocation.

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 description lists fields (state, priority, assignment) implying parameters, but the input schema is empty. Schema coverage is trivially 100% only because there are no parameters defined. This mismatch means the agent cannot correctly invoke the tool as described.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing ServiceNow incident', listing example fields (state, priority, assignment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, list, search, and add_comment.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., servicenow_create_incident for new incidents, servicenow_get_incident for viewing). Missing prerequisites such as the need for an existing incident ID and required permissions.

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