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 for permission context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this operation is reversible, what happens to the user's existing permissions, whether there are side effects (like notifications), or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose and includes a crucial prerequisite. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the main action followed by the requirement.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and a permission requirement. However, it lacks information about behavioral consequences, reversibility, error conditions, or what constitutes success. Given the tool's potential impact on user access, more context would be helpful for safe 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 the single parameter 'member_sys_id' clearly documented as 'System ID of the sys_user_grmember record'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 ('Remove a user from a group') and specifies the resource (user-group membership). It distinguishes from sibling 'add_user_to_group' by using the opposite action. However, it doesn't specify whether this is a permanent removal or temporary, or what happens to the user's access rights after removal.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which gives some context about when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool versus alternatives (like deactivating a user or modifying group permissions directly), nor does it mention any preconditions 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.