Batch Update Records

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'IMPORTANT: This modifies records' is consistent but largely redundant. It does not add deeper behavioral context such as partial failure semantics or permissions, but there is no contradiction.

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 three short sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the operation, outlining the update structure, and reinforcing the mutating nature. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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 rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete enough for a batch update tool. It clearly states the action and the data shape, though it could briefly note non-atomic behavior; the stop_on_error parameter in the schema partially covers that gap.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description only restates the core per-item fields (table, sys_id, field data). It does not add meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Update' and a clear resource: 'multiple records across one or more ServiceNow tables in a single batch.' This makes the tool's purpose immediately evident and distinguishes it from create or query-based update tools.

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 clearly communicates when to use this tool: when updating multiple records across one or more tables in a single batch. It does not explicitly name alternatives like query_update_records, but the context is unambiguous and sufficiently scoped.

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