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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether this is reversible, what happens if an update set with the same name exists, rate limits, or error conditions. The '[Scripting]' tag adds some context but is insufficient 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 at just one sentence plus a tag. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words. However, the '[Scripting]' tag feels tacked on without clear integration 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an Update Set is in this context, what happens after creation, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools list, more context is needed.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond what's in the schema, or provide examples of valid inputs.

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 creates a new Update Set with the verb 'Create' and resource 'Update Set', and mentions the optional 'switch to it' functionality. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'switch_update_set' by combining creation with switching, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools in the list.

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 it, or how it differs from other update set management tools like 'ensure_active_update_set', 'complete_update_set', or 'switch_update_set'.

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