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 this is a destructive mutation, what happens on failure, if there are rate limits, or what the response looks like (especially with no output schema). 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 that states the action and a key requirement without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal words to convey necessary information, making it highly concise 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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions a permission requirement but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, and expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves too much unspecified 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (sys_id and fields) adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'scrum task' entails, what fields are typical, or formatting details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('scrum task'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like update_task, update_story, update_epic, etc.), which would require mentioning what makes scrum tasks unique.

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 (e.g., create_scrum_task for new tasks, or other update tools for different record types), nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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