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. However, it doesn't describe other critical behaviors: whether the update is reversible, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full update), error handling, or the response format. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Update an existing email notification') and includes a critical prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects), response format, error conditions, and how it differs from sibling update tools. The permission hint is helpful, but overall, the description doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on the 'fields' object or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but also doesn't detract from it.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing email notification'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from 'create_notification' (a sibling tool) by specifying it updates existing records rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_incident' or 'update_user' beyond the resource type.

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 'create_notification' for new notifications or 'get_notification' for reading), nor does it mention any exclusions or contextual constraints beyond the permission requirement.

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