Push Script to ServiceNow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool modifies code and updates an existing record, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not disclose specifics like authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to the previous script version.

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 concise with five sentences, front-loading the action, then providing an important note, and finally listing supported types. No redundant information, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

The description does not mention the return value or output, which is important since there is no output schema. For a mutation tool, it should specify success/failure indicators or confirmation. Additionally, it lacks details on script validation or error scenarios.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema by mentioning the record is found by name and file is read from path, but this is already implied by the parameter names and descriptions.

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 pushes a local script file to ServiceNow to update an existing script record. It specifies the verb (push/update), the resource (local script file and ServiceNow record), and lists the supported script types, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like pull_script.

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 explicitly notes that the tool modifies code and requires the record to already exist (no creation). This provides clear usage context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, e.g., for creating new scripts or pulling scripts.

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