Publish a Decision Builder decision table in ServiceNow by setting sys_decision.status to 'published'; requires WRITE_ENABLED=true.
Publish a Decision Builder decision table — sets sys_decision.status to "published". Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision_sys_id | Yes | sys_id of the decision table (sys_decision) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the specific effect (sets status to published) and a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), providing valuable context beyond the annotations. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and effect, followed by a prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with zero fluff and efficient communication.
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 simple mutation with one parameter, the description covers the purpose, effect, and a prerequisite. It does not mention return values or error scenarios, but given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, it is largely complete. A minor gap is the absence of any confirmation or side-effect details, but it remains adequate for correct invocation.
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 fully documents the parameter decision_sys_id with its type and description. The description does not add additional meaning, constraints, or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 verb 'Publish' and the resource 'Decision Builder decision table', and specifies the exact effect: sets sys_decision.status to 'published'. This distinguishes it from other publish tools like publish_flow or publish_knowledge_article by naming the specific entity and the state change.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use after creating or editing a decision table, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or which sibling to prefer. The context of siblings like create_decision_table and list_decision_tables provides implicit context, but no direct comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.