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' implies a mutation, the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether the update is reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. The prerequisite about SCRIPTING_ENABLED adds some context, but overall behavioral traits are inadequately covered 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the action and includes a key prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any unnecessary words, 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 insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (like permissions or side effects), doesn't explain what the tool returns, and provides minimal usage guidance. For a tool that modifies UI Actions, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of field values or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('existing UI Action'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like update_asset, update_business_rule, etc.), which prevents a perfect score.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which provides some guidance. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (like create_ui_action or get_ui_action), nor does it mention any exclusions or specific contexts. This leaves the agent with incomplete usage information.

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