I proved this the same way the OP proved this problem (coincidentally, I had the same problem as homework, proved it, and then went online to see if another proof was available, to verify my work -- as I worked all the way up to the expression [I'm guessing the OP did this as well]). $T^{m}(B)={\displaystyle{\sum\limits_{i=0}^{m}(-1)^{i}\binom{m}{i}A^{m-i}BA^{i}}}$, then factor $B$ out of the sum, which gives the result, for any $B\in\mathcal{M}_{n\times n}(F)$ -- etc. Further, I did happen to find another proof as well. I'll give a proof sketch, since, to me, this alternative proof is convoluted a little, or somewhat overkill; mine/OP's proof is shorter, less complicated, etc. Nevertheless, here is the proof-sketch.
Proof-Sketch: First, if $V$ is an $F$-vector space, we claim that if $T_{1},T_{2}\in\mathcal{L}(V,V)$ are nilpotent, commuting operators, then $T_{1}+T_{2}$ is nilpotent.
To prove the claim, we have $T_{1}^{k}=0_{\mathcal{L}(V,V)}=T_{2}^{m}$ for some $k,m\in\mathbb{N}$ since these operators are assumed nilpotent (suppose without loss of generality that $m\leq k$ and note that $0_{\mathcal{L}(V,V)}$ is the zero operator/element of $\mathcal{L}(V,V)$ which is my preference in notation). Use the Binomial Theorem to expand $(T_{1}+T_{2})^{k+m}$, and show that $T_{1}^{k+m-i}T_{2}^{i}=0_{\mathcal{L}(V,V)}$ for all $i=0,1,...,m,m+1,...,k+m$; note that the use of the Binomial Theorem in this case is possible since the operators commute.
Returning to the overall proof, we have $V=\mathcal{M}_{n\times n}(F)$ whenever $n\in\mathbb{N}$ is arbitrarily fixed, and we take $A\in\mathcal{M}_{n\times n}(F)$ arbitrarily also. Define the operators $T_{1},T_{2}\in\mathcal{L}(V,V)$ such that for all $B\in\mathcal{M}_{n\times n}(F)$ we have $T_{1}(B)=AB$ and $T_{2}(B)=-BA$. This all being said, we first need to show that on $\mathcal{M}_{n\times n}(F)$ we have:
(i) $T_{1}T_{2}=T_{2}T_{1}$ (i.e., $T_{1},T_{2}$ commute); and
(ii) $T_{1}+T_{2}=T$ (where $T$ is defined the OP's problem-statement - also, this follows trivially by the definition of a sum of operators).
Thus, to show $T$ is nilpotent, it is sufficient to show that $T_{1},T_{2}$ are both nilpotent operators on $\mathcal{M}_{n\times n}(F)$. This can be accomplished by claiming for any $r,s\in\mathbb{N}$, we have $T_{1}^{r}(B)=A^{r}B$ as well as $T_{2}^{s}(B)=(-1)^{s}BA^{s}$ and proceeding by induction on $r$ and $s$ in $\mathbb{N}$, respectively. Thus, since $T_{1},T_{2}$ are nilpotent, we apply the claim at the beginning of the proof to get the overall result, and we are done.
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$
Like I said, to me this seems to be a bit much, since we have to show a bit more that any of the other proofs posted, but I decided to post it since the original claim at the beginning of the proof can be useful (note that claim is independent of the dimension of $V$). Hopefully there aren't any mistakes, as I tried to keep the above proof-sketch a little abstract so one who decides to use it can work out the details himself/herself (and I was a little quick about things too...sorry about that and that this is a bit lengthy still yet).