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 write nature ('Create or update', plus explicit '[Write]' tag), which is essential. However, it lacks details about permissions required, whether it overwrites existing properties, error handling for partial failures, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. The '[Write]' tag adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (one sentence plus a tag), front-loaded with the core purpose, and has zero wasted words. Every element ('create or update', 'multiple system properties', 'single operation', '[Write]') earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 the tool's complexity (bulk write operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and write nature but misses important context like error behavior, permissions, idempotency, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it safely and effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'properties' well-documented in the schema as an array of objects with name, value, and optional description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('create or update multiple system properties'), the resource ('system properties'), and the operational context ('in a single operation'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'set_system_property' by emphasizing bulk/multiple operations, and from 'bulk_get_properties' by specifying write vs read.

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 context for batch operations when multiple properties need modification, contrasting with single-property tools like 'set_system_property'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific prerequisites or alternatives beyond the bulk vs single distinction.

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