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 requirement, which is useful context about permissions. However, it doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether an incident ID is returned, if notifications are sent, or if there are 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 front-loads the core purpose and includes the essential prerequisite. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite but doesn't address behavioral aspects like return values, error conditions, or side effects. For a creation tool with this context, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 9 parameters with clear descriptions and enum-like values for urgency, impact, and priority. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new incident record'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_incident' or 'close_incident' by specifying creation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'create_security_incident' or 'create_change_request'.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'. This indicates a prerequisite condition, giving clear guidance on when the tool is applicable. However, it doesn't specify alternatives or when not to use it compared to other incident-related tools.

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