Push Script to ServiceNow

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'IMPORTANT: This modifies code on the ServiceNow instance' and the requirement that the record must exist. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by clarifying the operational impact and precondition, even if it doesn't detail all failure modes.

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 tight and well-organized: a clear opening sentence, an important warning, and a compact list of supported types. Every sentence adds crucial information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key behavioral aspects: it modifies code, requires an existing record, and specifies allowed script types. It omits details like error handling or response format, but these are not essential for selecting and invoking the tool correctly, especially with the sibling pull_script providing complementary context.

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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, providing a high baseline. The description adds value by enumerating supported script types with friendly names (e.g., 'Script Include', 'Business Rule') and explaining that the record is found by name in the appropriate table, which clarifies script_name and script_type semantics beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Push a local script file to a ServiceNow instance, updating the script field on the matching record.' It identifies the specific verb (push), resource (local script file), destination (ServiceNow instance), and action (update script field), and distinguishes itself from the sibling pull_script by focusing on the push/update direction.

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 record must already exist and that this tool updates, not creates, which frames when to use it. It also lists supported script types, providing useful selection context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when to prefer a different tool (e.g., execute_script), though the limitation to existing records is a clear exclusion.

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