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. While '[Write]' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens if scheduling fails, whether notifications can be canceled, or what the expected response looks like. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a write operation.

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 at just 7 words, front-loading the key information with '[Write]' and the core action. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after scheduling, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. The agent lacks critical information needed to properly use this mutation tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but provides no extra 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 action ('Schedule') and resource ('notification for future delivery'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_notification' by focusing on scheduling rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other notification-related tools.

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 like 'create_notification' or 'send_push_notification'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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