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 of behavioral disclosure. It marks the tool as '[Write]', indicating a mutation, but fails to describe critical traits: it doesn't specify if rollback is reversible, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., data loss), or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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—a single sentence with the '[Write]' annotation appended. It front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (a destructive rollback operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, prerequisites, or result expectations. For a tool that could impact system state significantly, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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 both parameters ('update_set_sys_id' and 'reason') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints (e.g., sys_id must be from a committed set). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 ('Rollback a deployment') and the method ('by reverting an update set'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'commit_changeset' or 'publish_changeset' by focusing on reversal rather than advancement. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'switch_update_set' or 'preview_update_set', which might involve similar update set operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a committed update set), exclusions (e.g., not for uncommitted sets), or related tools like 'commit_changeset' or 'list_update_sets'. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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