Update a ServiceNow requested item's state, stage, or fields using its sys_id.
Update the state/stage or fields of a requested item (sc_req_item). Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | New stage value | |
| state | No | New state value | |
| fields | No | Additional field values | |
| sys_id | Yes | sys_id of the RITM |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral aspects (e.g., partial update semantics, validation rules, or response format) beyond what annotations already convey (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true).
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: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then a single prerequisite. Every word earns its place.
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 is adequate for a simple update tool but lacks details on the fields object structure, potential constraints (e.g., allowed values for stage/state), and what the response looks like. Since there is no output schema, these gaps are not covered elsewhere.
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 provides descriptions for all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description essentially restates these (state/stage/fields) without adding new meaning or clarifying interactions between them. Baseline 3 applies since schema covers the parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('sc_req_item'), and mentions the fields it can modify (state/stage/fields). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling update tools (e.g., update_incident, update_problem) other than by naming the resource.
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 implies usage for updating request items but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), not usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.