sn_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it implies a partial update ('field values to change'), it does not disclose side effects, error handling, authorization requirements, or what happens if the record does not exist. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 main purpose, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or failure modes. It does not mention what the tool returns after an update (e.g., updated record, success indicator), nor does it cover edge cases. For a 3-parameter mutation tool, the description feels incomplete.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (table, sys_id, fields). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating 'Pass the sys_id and field values,' so it does not elevate beyond the 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's function: 'Update an existing ServiceNow record.' The verb 'Update' and resource 'ServiceNow record' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like sn_create (create) and sn_delete (delete) by explicitly saying 'existing.'

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 clear context that this is for updating existing records and instructs to 'Pass the sys_id and field values to change.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as sn_create or sn_batch, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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