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 correctly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation and mentions the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether the story becomes active immediately, or any rate limits. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 communicates the core purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text, making it appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and one prerequisite but lacks information about what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationship to other tools. Given the complexity of creating a story with 6 parameters, more context about the creation process would be helpful.

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, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('agile story/user story'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_epic' or 'create_scrum_task' beyond mentioning it's for stories specifically.

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 guideline: 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' indicating a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_story' or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_epic' or 'create_scrum_task'.

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