Modify workflow activities in ServiceNow by updating names, descriptions, or attributes to maintain accurate business processes.
Update an existing activity in a workflow
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes | Activity ID or sys_id | |
| name | No | Name of the activity | |
| description | No | Description of the activity | |
| attributes | No | Additional attributes for the activity |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't address permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the update operation returns, what permissions are needed, or how it differs from related operations. The context signals indicate this is a non-trivial tool (4 parameters, 1 required) that deserves more comprehensive documentation.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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') and target ('an existing activity in a workflow'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_workflow' or 'add_workflow_activity', which would be needed for a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_workflow_activity' or 'delete_workflow_activity'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for this update operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.