servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the SCRIPTING_ENABLED prerequisite but doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits: whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), what permissions are required, whether policies are immediately active, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 ('Create a new UI Policy to control field behavior dynamically') and includes essential prerequisite information. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 (creation operation with 6 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and one prerequisite but misses important context about permissions, error handling, activation behavior, and response format. For a creation tool in this environment, more completeness would be expected.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'control field behavior dynamically' which relates to the tool's purpose but doesn't clarify specific parameter usage. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('UI Policy') with specific functionality ('to control field behavior dynamically'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_catalog_ui_policy' by focusing on general UI policies rather than catalog-specific ones. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other policy creation tools like 'create_business_rule' or 'create_client_script'.

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 this tool by stating the prerequisite 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'. This gives clear guidance on necessary conditions. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'create_ui_action' or 'create_client_script' for similar dynamic behavior control.

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