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. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action, mentioning it's a write operation (implied by 'Create or update' and emphasized with '[Write]'), but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, side effects, error handling, or whether it overwrites existing values. This leaves significant gaps 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with an emphasized tag—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and usage context, making it incomplete for safe and effective agent invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all four parameters (name, value, description, type) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('Create or update') and resource ('ServiceNow system property value'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_set_properties' or 'delete_system_property', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 'bulk_set_properties' for multiple properties or 'delete_system_property' for removal. It also lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.

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