servicenow_update_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or replaces the record, whether it requires elevated permissions, whether changes are reversible, or whether workflow state affects mutability — all critical 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though the information itself is thin.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested opaque parameter, and ten siblings including an ambiguous non-Flow update tool, this description leaves too many gaps: partial-vs-replace semantics, permission needs, valid field names, and sibling routing are all absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies only sysId as an addressing key; the fields object (nested, additionalProperties: {}, no field names) is left entirely opaque, leaving agents to guess valid field names and value formats for ServiceNow Flow records.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (ServiceNow Flow record) and identifies the addressing key (sys_id). It clearly targets Flow records, distinguishing it from sibling servicenow_update_record, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative servicenow_update_record that appears designed for non-Flow updates. The agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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