servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is 'experimental' and requires 'WRITE_ENABLED=true', which adds some behavioral context about reliability and permissions. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like what type of records can be updated, potential side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently conveys the core functionality, experimental nature, and prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what happens after the update (e.g., success/failure responses), limitations of the natural language processing, or examples of valid instructions. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 both parameters ('instruction' and 'table') with descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples for these parameters beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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: 'Update a record using natural language'. It specifies the verb ('Update'), resource ('a record'), and method ('using natural language'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_incident' or 'update_asset', which are more specific update 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 provides some usage context with the experimental nature and requirement 'WRITE_ENABLED=true', which implies this tool should only be used when write permissions are enabled. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other update tools (like 'update_incident' or 'update_asset'), nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions beyond the permission requirement.

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