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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the WRITE_ENABLED requirement (a permission constraint), it doesn't describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive mutation, what happens to unspecified fields, if there are rate limits, 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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the essential prerequisite directly, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 incomplete. It lacks information about behavioral consequences (e.g., whether updates are reversible), error handling, response format, or dependencies beyond the WRITE_ENABLED flag. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 fully documents both parameters (sys_id and fields). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain field format examples, validation rules, or sys_id sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('change request'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_change_request' by focusing on updates rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_incident' or 'update_problem'.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool by stating the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is valuable guidance. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'close_change_request' or 'submit_change_for_approval' for different change request operations.

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