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 prerequisite, which is useful context about permissions. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether the creation is reversible, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic permission requirement.

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 - a single sentence that states the purpose and includes the key prerequisite. There's no wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first, followed by the constraint.

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 provides the basic purpose and a permission requirement. However, it doesn't explain what gets returned (group ID, success confirmation, etc.), error conditions, or other contextual information that would help an agent understand the complete interaction.

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, with all three parameters ('name', 'description', 'manager') clearly documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 assignment group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_user' or 'create_workspace', but the resource specificity ('assignment group') provides inherent differentiation.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which provides some usage context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_group' or 'add_user_to_group', nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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