servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Update' implies a mutation and the bracketed '[Write]' hints at a write operation, it lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate 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 extremely concise—two brief sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a behavioral hint ('[Write]') efficiently. Every element earns its place.

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 4 parameters, 25% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address permissions, side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 only 25% (only 'sys_id' has a description), and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by 'Update an existing UI Builder page.' It doesn't explain what 'title', 'path', or 'layout' represent, their formats, constraints, or how they interact. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 Builder page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_uib_component' or 'update_portal_widget', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes a UI Builder page from other UI elements.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling update tools (e.g., update_uib_component, update_portal_widget, update_ui_action), there's no indication of what makes this tool specific to UI Builder pages or when it should be chosen over other update operations.

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