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. While 'Update fields' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, what happens on partial updates, if there are side effects (e.g., triggering workflows), or what the response looks like. The WRITE_ENABLED requirement is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose and includes a critical usage condition. There's zero waste—every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects), response format, error conditions, and differentiation from sibling tools. The WRITE_ENABLED hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the broader gaps in context.

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 adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain field constraints, valid keys, or update behavior. 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 action ('Update fields') and resource ('task record'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like update_asset, update_incident, update_user, etc.), which would require specifying what makes task updates 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 condition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is helpful context. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (like complete_task or other update_* siblings), nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the permission flag. The guidance is implied but incomplete.

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