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 prerequisite 'WRITE_ENABLED=true,' which is useful context about permissions. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits like whether the creation is reversible, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The mention of 'sysapproval_rule table' adds some technical context but lacks operational details.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and mechanism, and the second adds prerequisites and technical details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key information.

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 (a creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose, usage context, and a prerequisite, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it should do more to compensate, such as explaining what happens after creation or potential side effects.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 tool's purpose: 'Create an approval rule that automatically generates approval requests when a record matches given conditions.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('approval rule'), and mechanism ('automatically generates approval requests'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_business_rule' or 'create_flow' which might have overlapping domains.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'when a record matches given conditions' and includes a prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'approve_request' or 'submit_change_for_approval,' which might handle approvals differently.

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