servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the WRITE_ENABLED requirement (a permission/configuration constraint) and hints at staging behavior ('for later transformation'), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is an immediate commit, if it's reversible, what errors might occur, or how it interacts with transformation processes. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 packs essential information: the core action, target resource, purpose context, and a key requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and one constraint, but lacks important context about behavior, error handling, transformation workflow integration, and expected outcomes. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity and mutation nature.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions (e.g., doesn't clarify data format examples or staging table naming conventions). This meets the baseline expectation when 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 action ('Insert a row') and target resource ('Import Set staging table'), with additional context about transformation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the specific focus on Import Set staging tables makes it distinct from general creation tools like create_incident or create_record.

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 gives some guidance about prerequisites. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_record or other data insertion methods, nor does it specify what happens after insertion ('for later transformation').

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