servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the permission requirement ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other important traits like whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response looks like (no output schema exists). The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the critical permission requirement. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 adequate but incomplete. It covers the core purpose and permission requirement well, but doesn't address error conditions, response format, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of adding comments to ITSM records (which could have validation rules, notification triggers, etc.), more context would be helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like examples of valid table names beyond 'incident', format requirements for sys_id, or character limits for comments). Baseline 3 is 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 specific action ('Add a customer-visible comment'), target resource ('any ITSM record'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_work_note' (which likely adds internal notes) and 'generate_work_notes' (which may generate automated notes). The verb 'add' is precise and the scope 'customer-visible' provides important differentiation.

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 states when to use this tool ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), providing a clear prerequisite. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (like 'add_work_note' for internal notes), which prevents a perfect score.

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