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 prerequisite 'WRITE_ENABLED=true', which adds useful context about permissions needed. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits like whether the creation is reversible, what happens on failure, or what the typical response looks like (though there's no output schema). The description is adequate but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 with just one sentence that contains no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the essential prerequisite information efficiently.

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 provides the basic purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it lacks information about what happens after creation, error conditions, or how this tool relates to other portal creation tools. Given the complexity of creating a portal page and the absence of structured behavioral information, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 a new page') and resource ('inside a Service Portal'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_portal' or 'create_portal_widget', which also create portal-related resources.

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 some usage context by mentioning the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_portal' or 'create_portal_widget', nor does it provide explicit exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.

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