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 mentions the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits: whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are needed beyond WRITE_ENABLED, how validation works, what happens on failure, 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 that states the core action and the key prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes essential context without any wasted words. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It mentions one prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED) but omits other critical context: what fields can be updated (only implied by schema), what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, and what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves too much unspecified.

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%, with both parameters ('sys_id' and 'fields') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('an existing catalog item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'create_catalog_item' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_asset' or 'update_user' beyond the resource type.

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 one explicit usage condition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is helpful for prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus other catalog-related tools (like 'order_catalog_item' or 'search_catalog') or when not to use it. The guidance is limited to a single constraint.

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