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 a permission requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is useful context, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as what happens on success (e.g., returns a user ID), error conditions, whether the operation is idempotent, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and 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 front-loads the core action ('Create a new user account') and includes a crucial prerequisite without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of a user creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on the return value (e.g., user ID or confirmation), error handling, side effects, or how it integrates with sibling tools. The prerequisite hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the overall gaps in contextual information needed for effective tool invocation.

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 each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'user_name' as 'Unique username (login name)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints beyond uniqueness. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new user account'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_user' by focusing on creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly compare to other user-related tools like 'add_user_to_group' or 'list_users'.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_user' for existing users or 'list_users' for retrieval), and doesn't specify any exclusions or complementary tools.

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