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 this is a write operation ('[Write]'), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. 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 very brief (one sentence plus a tag), which is efficient. However, the '[Write]' annotation could be integrated more smoothly, and the single sentence lacks structural depth. It's front-loaded but could benefit from slightly more elaboration without becoming verbose.

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, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It should cover more about the update's impact, success criteria, or error handling to be complete. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for the lack of context around the tool's operation.

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 meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what an 'IT asset record' entails or provide examples of updatable fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and resource ('IT asset record'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from other update tools in the sibling list (like update_incident, update_user, etc.), which would require specifying what makes an IT asset record distinct.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing asset), when not to use it, or what other tools might be related (like create_asset or get_asset from the sibling list).

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