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 a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED) which is useful, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. 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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a necessary prerequisite without unnecessary elaboration.

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 details on behavioral aspects (permissions, reversibility), doesn't explain the return value, and doesn't provide usage guidance relative to siblings. The prerequisite is helpful but insufficient for full context.

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 object). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on valid field values or provide examples). 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing client script'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from 'create_client_script' (a sibling tool) by specifying it's for existing scripts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'update_' tools that might modify different resources.

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 over alternatives like 'create_client_script' or other update tools, 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.