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 states '[Write]' indicating a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires admin permissions, if it overwrites existing properties, what happens on errors, rate limits, or if it's idempotent. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 with a brief annotation ('[Write]')—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose phrasing. It efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (write operation with JSON input, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, idempotency, and response format. While the schema covers parameters, the behavioral and operational context is insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 fully documents both parameters ('properties' as key-value map and 'dry_run' as boolean). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., JSON format examples or dry-run implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, though no extra value is added.

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 ('import') and resource ('system properties'), specifying that it creates or updates from a JSON object. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_system_property' (single property) and 'bulk_set_properties' (bulk operations) by focusing on JSON-based import. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'export_properties' (which is inverse) or 'list_system_properties' (read-only).

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 minimal guidance, mentioning only that it's for importing from JSON. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_system_property' (for single properties) or 'bulk_set_properties' (for bulk operations without JSON format). No prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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