servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful for permissions, but lacks other critical details: it doesn't clarify if this is a destructive update (overwrites fields), what happens to unspecified fields, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits/constraints. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Update a security incident record') and includes a necessary prerequisite. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately sized 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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructive nature, error handling), output format, or how it interacts with sibling tools. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use by an AI agent in a rich toolset environment.

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 additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain field options like state/severity values or formatting). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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 ('security incident record'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like update_incident, update_change_request, etc.), which would require mentioning what makes security incidents distinct.

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 some usage context by specifying a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which helps indicate when this tool can be used. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. update_incident for general incidents) or any exclusions, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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