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 the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful context about permissions. However, it doesn't describe what 'Order' actually does (creates a request? triggers fulfillment?), doesn't mention side effects, doesn't indicate whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation, and provides no information about error conditions or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 states the purpose and includes the key usage requirement. There's zero waste - every word serves a purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'Order' means operationally, what the tool returns, what happens after ordering, or potential side effects. Given the complexity of ordering a service catalog item (which likely involves workflow triggers, approvals, or fulfillment processes), the description is insufficiently complete.

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 three parameters (sys_id, quantity, variables) with their types and descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what a 'service catalog item' is, doesn't provide examples of variables, or clarify the relationship between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 ('Order') and resource ('a service catalog item'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_catalog_item' or 'update_catalog_item', which limits its score to 4 rather than 5.

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 one explicit usage condition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which provides some context for when this tool can be used. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (like 'create_catalog_item' or 'update_catalog_item'), nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond the WRITE_ENABLED requirement.

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