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 states this is a write operation ('Create') and implies it generates exit tasks, but doesn't describe what an 'offboarding case' entails, whether it triggers workflows, what permissions are needed, if it's reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 very concise - a single sentence plus a bracketed annotation. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the '[Write]' annotation feels redundant since 'Create' already implies a write operation, and it could be more integrated into the sentence structure.

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 tool that creates employee offboarding cases (a significant HR operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'offboarding case' is, what 'exit tasks' are generated, whether this triggers notifications or workflows, what happens on success/failure, or how to verify the creation. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational context.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'employee offboarding case with exit tasks' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide additional context about how parameters interact or format requirements.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create an employee offboarding case with exit tasks.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('employee offboarding case'), and additional functionality ('with exit tasks'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'create_onboarding_case' tool, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with related tools like 'create_onboarding_case' or 'create_hr_case' from the sibling list. The only usage hint is the bracketed '[Write]' which is minimal.

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