Modify an existing ServiceNow business rule by providing its sys_id and key-value fields for name, script, condition, or active state.
Update a business rule (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs to update (name, script, active, condition, etc.) | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the rule |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the SCRIPTING_ENABLED requirement, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects of updating a business rule or what happens when the requirement is unmet, so it adds limited behavioral detail.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and includes a concise requirement. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
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 simple parameter set (2 params) and presence of annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It adds the critical SCRIPTING_ENABLED prerequisite, and the schema documents the parameters clearly. It does not mention return values, but no output schema exists, so that is not a gap. Slightly more context about the update's effect would improve completeness.
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%: both sys_id and fields have descriptions. The fields description adds meaning ('Key-value pairs to update (name, script, active, condition, etc.)'). Since the schema already carries the parameter semantics, the description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Update a business rule'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_business_rule, list_business_rules, and get_business_rule. The additional requirement does not obscure the purpose.
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 (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) that must be met, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. Usage is implied by the 'update' verb and the existence of create/list siblings, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.