servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states this is a write operation ('[Write]'), which is obvious from the name 'create_asset'. It doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether the asset becomes active immediately, if there are approval workflows, what permissions are required, or what the response contains). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 at just 6 words plus a tag. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the '[Write]' tag adds minimal value since 'create' already implies writing, making it slightly redundant rather than purely efficient.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, whether there are side effects, or what the response contains. The description should provide more context about the creation process and outcomes.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new IT asset record'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_asset' by specifying creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'create_user' or 'create_incident' beyond the asset focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or when to choose this over similar creation tools for different record types. The only contextual element is the '[Write]' tag, which is redundant with the tool name.

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