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 mentions the WRITE_ENABLED requirement but doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., case assignment, notifications, response format), whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key requirement without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns upon success/failure, doesn't address error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of creating an HR case and the lack of structured metadata, more comprehensive description is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value regarding parameter usage or constraints.

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 HR Service Delivery case'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_onboarding_case' or 'create_offboarding_case' which appear to be more specific HR case types.

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 one explicit usage condition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't explain when to use this general HR case creation tool versus the more specific sibling tools like 'create_onboarding_case' or 'create_offboarding_case', nor does it mention prerequisites or alternative approaches.

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