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. It mentions a permission requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is useful context about authorization needs. However, it doesn't describe other critical behavioral traits such as whether the update is reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, potential side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with essential information in a single sentence. Every word earns its place: it states the action, the resource, and the key prerequisite without any fluff or redundancy. This makes it easy for an AI agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While it mentions a permission requirement, it lacks information about what the tool returns, error handling, idempotency, or other behavioral aspects crucial for safe invocation. The description doesn't compensate for the absence of structured metadata, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how to use this tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('sys_id' and 'fields'). The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about these parameters beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('fields on an existing HR case'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_hr_case' by focusing on updates rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_incident' or 'update_csm_case' beyond the HR case focus.

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 guideline: 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which indicates a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_hr_case' or 'add_work_note' for HR cases, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools. The guidance is limited to a single permission requirement.

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