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. It mentions a permission requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true') which is valuable, but doesn't describe whether the deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated data, error conditions, or response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 - a single sentence that contains both the core purpose and a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the main action first.

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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It mentions a permission requirement but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, error handling, or what constitutes success. Given the tool's potential impact and lack of structured metadata, more context about the operation's consequences would be 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% with the single parameter 'attachment_sys_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (it doesn't explain what a sys_id is, format requirements, or where to find it). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Delete') and target ('an attachment from a record'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_system_property' or 'delete_uib_page' - it only describes what it does, not how it differs from other delete operations.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') which provides some usage context, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_user_from_group' or other deletion tools. No guidance is given about when this specific attachment deletion is appropriate versus other data modification operations.

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