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 correctly indicates this is a write operation ('Resolve') and mentions an access requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is useful. However, it doesn't describe what 'resolving' entails (e.g., state changes, notifications, side effects), whether the action is reversible, or what happens if resolution fails.

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 front-loads the core action ('Resolve an incident') and includes essential context ('with resolution code and notes') and a critical prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every element serves a purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and access requirement but lacks details about behavioral consequences, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of incident resolution in a system with many sibling tools, more context about what 'resolving' means operationally would be beneficial.

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 all three parameters (sys_id, resolution_code, resolution_notes). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples for resolution_code beyond the schema's single example, or guidance on resolution_notes content. 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 verb ('Resolve') and resource ('an incident') with specific required inputs ('resolution code and notes'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'close_incident' or 'resolve_problem', which reduces clarity about when to choose this specific resolution tool.

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 guidance by mentioning the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_incident' or 'update_incident', nor does it provide context about typical resolution workflows.

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