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 key behavioral trait—the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement—which is crucial for permissions. However, it lacks details on other behavioral aspects such as 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 that front-loads the core action and includes the essential prerequisite without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy 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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage beyond the schema, and expected outcomes. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for fully informed 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('sys_id' and 'fields') adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of 'fields' or examples of updatable fields), 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 action ('Update') and resource ('fields on an existing problem'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_problem' by focusing on updates rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'update_incident') beyond the resource name.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool by stating the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is a clear usage condition. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'create_problem' for new problems or other update tools for different resources), leaving some guidance gaps.

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