servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a permission requirement (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied by 'Close'), what happens to the case after closing (e.g., locked from further edits), error conditions, or response format. The description adds some context but leaves significant 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 a crucial prerequisite. There's zero wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place by either stating the action or providing necessary context.

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 this is a mutation tool (closing a case) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and one permission requirement, but lacks information about behavioral consequences, error handling, return values, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a tool that performs a state-changing operation, more context would be beneficial.

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 fully documents all three parameters (sys_id, resolution_code, resolution_notes). The description mentions 'resolution details' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., examples of resolution codes, formatting for notes). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Close') and resource ('a CSM case') with specific resolution details. It distinguishes from siblings like 'close_incident' or 'close_hr_case' by specifying CSM cases, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'close_change_request' or other close operations beyond the resource type.

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 one explicit usage condition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is helpful for prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_csm_case' or other case management tools, nor does it indicate typical scenarios for closing cases versus leaving them open.

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