sn_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the PATCH nature and return of updated record, but lacks details on auth requirements, error handling (e.g., missing sys_id), and idempotency. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Extremely concise: one definitive sentence plus three clear examples. Every element adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 params, no output schema) and the detailed examples, the description covers core usage well. Missing error behavior or prerequisites, but overall complete for a standard update operation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage; the description adds examples for table, sys_id, fields but does not explain the optional return_fields or the structure of the fields object beyond examples. No enhancement over schema.

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 the verb (update), resource (ServiceNow record), and method (PATCH partial update). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sn_create, sn_delete, sn_read by specifying that it updates an existing record by sys_id.

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?

Examples show typical usage for updating an incident, sys_user, and sc_task, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. The context is clear from the name and description, but excluding contraindications lowers the score.

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