servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the note is 'internal, not visible to end user' and mentions a permission requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), adding useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or response format, which are important for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 a crucial prerequisite. There is no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite but lacks details on behavioral traits like what happens on success/failure, return values, or error conditions. However, the high schema coverage and clear purpose partially compensate, making it minimally adequate.

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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the scope of 'table' or format of 'sys_id'. 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 action ('Add an internal work note') and the target resource ('any ITSM record'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_comment' or 'generate_work_notes', which could have overlapping functionality in an ITSM context.

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 some guidance by mentioning the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_comment' or 'generate_work_notes', nor does it provide exclusions or detailed context for selection among siblings.

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