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 mentions a prerequisite ('SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are needed, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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's front-loaded with the core action and includes a necessary prerequisite, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The prerequisite is helpful but doesn't compensate for the broader gaps.

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'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'fields' can include or format details). 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 ('script include'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_script_include' or 'get_script_include', but the action is specific enough to understand what it does.

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 a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which implies when to use it, but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g., vs. 'create_script_include') or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not fully developed.

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