update_table_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'partial update' and identification by sys_id. It does not disclose critical behaviors: what happens if the record does not exist, whether validation occurs, permission requirements, whether updated record is returned, or idempotency. Significant gaps 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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Minor improvement possible by adding behavioral context, but no waste.

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 having 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., updated record object), error conditions, or any side effects. For a generic update tool, more details are needed to ensure safe and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions 'partial update' but does not explain the 'fields' object format, allowed keys, or what constitutes a valid value. AdditionalProperties: true provides no guidance, and the description fails to compensate.

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 action ('Update fields'), identifies the resource ('an existing record identified by sys_id'), and specifies the scope ('in any ServiceNow table by technical name'). The 'partial update' detail further clarifies the behavior. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings which target specific tables (e.g., update_incident) by being generic.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include specific update tools for incidents, requests, etc., but the description does not direct the agent to choose this tool for generic tables or when a specific tool is unavailable. Missing when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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