servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a write operation ('[Write]') and implies a destructive action (retiring/disposing), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, if it triggers workflows or notifications, what happens to related records, or what the response looks like. 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 very concise (one sentence plus a bracketed note), front-loading the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage. However, the bracketed '[Write]' feels tacked on and could be integrated more smoothly, slightly affecting structure.

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 behavioral context (irreversibility, permissions, side effects), usage guidelines, and any information about return values or errors. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and correct use is inadequate.

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, disposal_reason, disposal_date) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retirement/disposal context, which the schema descriptions already cover. 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 ('Retire') and resource ('IT asset'), with additional context about marking as disposed/retired. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_asset' or 'track_asset_lifecycle' by specifying the retirement/disposal action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'delete_attachment' or other disposal-related tools in the sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist, user permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for active assets), or explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools. The only contextual cue is the bracketed '[Write]', which is minimal and not explanatory.

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