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 indicates a write operation ('[Write]') and the action ('retire'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether retirement is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related data, or the expected outcome. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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is extremely concise with a single sentence that includes the action, resource, and additional context ('mark as outdated'). It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 details on behavioral aspects like side effects, permissions, or return values, and doesn't provide usage context relative to siblings. For a tool that modifies data, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'article_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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description clearly states the verb ('retire') and resource ('knowledge article'), with additional context ('mark as outdated') that clarifies the action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_knowledge_article' or 'create_knowledge_article' beyond the basic action difference.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_knowledge_article' for modifying articles or 'create_knowledge_article' for new ones. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing article access or specific permissions, or when retirement is appropriate versus deletion or archiving.

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