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. It mentions a permission requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether the update is reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loads the core action ('Update a group') and adds only essential context ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error cases), parameter usage beyond schema basics, and what to expect upon success or failure, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 (e.g., examples of updatable fields or format details), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('a group'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_user' or 'update_asset' beyond the resource name, which prevents a perfect score.

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 WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'create_group' vs. 'update_group') or any exclusions, leaving usage guidelines implied rather than explicit.

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