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. It mentions a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED), which is useful, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Update an existing ACL rule') and appends a crucial prerequisite, making it 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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error handling), doesn't explain the return value, and provides minimal guidance on usage beyond a basic prerequisite. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for other gaps.

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 (sys_id and fields). The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameter usage, syntax, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing ACL rule'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from 'create_acl' (creation vs. update) and 'get_acl' (read vs. update), though it doesn't explicitly mention sibling differentiation.

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 a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'create_acl' or 'list_acls', nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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