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 ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which adds some context about authorization needs. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits such as whether the update is reversible, what happens on failure, rate limits, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and a key requirement. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids any unnecessary words, making it highly effective 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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a permission requirement but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, or what the tool returns, which are crucial 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 input schema already documents both parameters (sys_id and fields) adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or constraints, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('an agile story'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like update_asset, update_change_request, etc.), which would require mentioning what makes updating a story 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 an implicit usage guideline by stating 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which indicates a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_story or other update tools), nor does it specify exclusions or contextual best practices.

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