Update an agile story in ServiceNow by specifying its system ID and the fields to change. Apply new values to story attributes directly to keep project data accurate.
Update an agile story (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs to update | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the story |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide safety profile (not read-only, not destructive). The description adds the useful requirement WRITE_ENABLED=true, which is beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose how the update behaves (e.g., partial vs full update, field validation, return value).
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 concise sentence and front-loads the action. It earns its place by adding the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, though more behavioral detail could be added without being verbose.
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?
For a simple update tool with complete schema and annotations, the description is minimally viable. It lacks information about the return value, success/failure behavior, or any constraints on fields, and does not clarify the distinction from generic update_record. Given the existence of sibling tools like update_epic and update_record, more contextual guidance would help.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for sys_id and fields. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema, which is acceptable but not enhanced.
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 uses the clear verb 'Update' with the specific resource 'agile story', distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_epic and update_scrum_task. It does not explicitly state the scope or excluded operations, but the object is unambiguous.
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 only mentions the prerequisite WRITE_ENABLED=true and does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_story or update_record. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.