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. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which implies permission or configuration needs. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or the response format (no output schema exists).

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 essential context (the 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 (a write operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more context 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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, formatting rules, or constraints). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 ('Create') and resource ('scrum task'), with additional clarification that it's a 'sub-task of a story'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_story' by specifying the sub-task relationship, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_scrum_task' or 'list_scrum_tasks'.

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 it: 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'. This indicates a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing tasks) or name specific alternatives like 'update_scrum_task' for modifications.

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