Modify an existing ServiceNow email notification by its sys_id. Update fields such as name, subject, message_html, active status, or condition. Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true.
Update an existing email notification (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Fields to update: name, subject, message_html, active, condition, etc. | |
| sys_id | Yes | Notification sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which align with an update operation. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite, which is not present in annotations and is valuable context for the agent to check before invocation.
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?
A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the requirement in parentheses. No unnecessary words or repetition, every element contributes.
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?
With no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns after the update, and it leaves the semantics of 'fields' partially open (though schema gives examples). It is sufficient for a basic update, but lacks guidance on return values or partial update behavior.
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 fully describes both required parameters, sys_id and fields, including the kinds of fields it accepts. The description adds no extra parameter details, so the schema carries the load; baseline 3 is appropriate given the 100% 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 'Update an existing email notification', identifying the specific verb (update) and resource (existing email notification). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_notification, get_notification, and list_notifications.
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 phrase 'existing email notification' implies it is for modifying already-created notifications, and the requirement 'WRITE_ENABLED=true' provides a precondition for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over create_notification or how to handle alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.