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 a prerequisite ('WRITE_ENABLED=true') which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose other critical traits such as whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied by 'Resolve'), what permissions are needed beyond the flag, what happens to the problem status, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 and includes a necessary prerequisite. There is no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence serves a purpose (action, parameters, condition).

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 insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'Resolve' entails operationally, response format, error conditions) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured metadata. The prerequisite hint is helpful but not enough for full contextual understanding.

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, root_cause, resolution_notes) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting examples or constraints. 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 ('a problem') with specific fields ('root cause and resolution notes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_problem' or 'update_problem' by focusing on resolution, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'close_incident' or 'resolve_incident' which are similar operations on different resources.

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 by stating 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which implies a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_problem' or 'close_change_request', nor does it mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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