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 discloses a behavioral trait ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), indicating an authentication or permission requirement. However, it lacks details on other aspects like whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or error handling, making it only partially transparent.

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 front-loads the core action ('Update HR profile fields for a user') and includes a crucial prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and structured for clarity.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context but is incomplete. It covers the purpose and a key requirement, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, which are important for a mutation tool with 2 parameters and nested objects.

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 input schema already documents both parameters ('user_sys_id' and 'fields') adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions 'fields' but the schema already describes it as 'HR profile fields to update'), resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('HR profile fields for a user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_user' or 'update_hr_case', which could have overlapping domains, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 some context by mentioning 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which implies a prerequisite condition for usage. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_user' for general user updates or 'update_hr_case' for HR cases), 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.