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. While '[Write]' indicates a mutation operation, it lacks crucial details: what permissions are required, whether this creates a draft or active policy, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 extremely concise at just one sentence, front-loading the essential information with the '[Write]' prefix. There's no wasted verbiage, though one could argue it's too brief given the lack of annotations and output schema. Every word earns its place, but the description may be under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, how to verify success, or what distinguishes this from the sibling 'create_ui_policy' tool. The agent lacks crucial context for proper tool invocation and result interpretation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional 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 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the schema.

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 target resource ('UI policy for a catalog item form'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from generic 'create' tools by specifying the exact type of policy being created. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'create_ui_policy' tool, which appears to be a more general version.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this specific catalog-focused UI policy creation is appropriate versus the general 'create_ui_policy' tool, or any other contextual usage information. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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