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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is crucial for permissions, but doesn't describe other behavioral traits like whether the closure is reversible, what happens to the case status, or if there are side effects. It adequately covers the main constraint but lacks depth on mutation consequences.

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 action and includes the essential permission requirement. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by providing necessary context without redundancy.

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 minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of closing a case, more context on what 'close' entails would be beneficial for completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as examples for close_code beyond the schema's 'e.g., "Resolved", "Withdrawn"'. 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 ('HR case') with additional context about resolution notes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_hr_case' by specifying the closure action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other closure tools like 'close_incident' or 'close_csm_case'.

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 explicit context about when to use it ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), indicating a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'update_hr_case' for non-closure modifications, leaving some guidance gaps.

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