servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It hints at a permission requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether the update is idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and includes a crucial prerequisite, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error handling), usage context versus siblings, and expected outcomes. The prerequisite is helpful but insufficient for a tool that modifies scheduled jobs.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('sys_id' and 'fields') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of field values or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('a scheduled job'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_asset' or 'update_change_request', but the resource specificity is sufficient for clarity.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which provides some usage context. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_scheduled_job' or 'get_scheduled_job', nor does it specify scenarios where updates are appropriate versus creating new jobs.

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