Update a ServiceNow user account by providing the system ID and field-value pairs. Modify specific user attributes directly. Requires write access enabled on the server.
Update a user account (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs to update | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the user |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite, which is not captured in the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral details such as partial update semantics, error behavior on nonexistent user, or permission requirements, leaving the agent to infer from the schema.
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 short sentence, front-loading the operation and the key prerequisite. No wasted words.
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 simple two-parameter operation, full schema coverage, and annotations indicating safety properties, the description is reasonably complete. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but that is penalized in the usage dimension; the core operation and prerequisite are covered.
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 descriptions for sys_id and fields, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the 'fields' object is adequately described as key-value pairs.
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 specific verb 'Update' and resource 'user account', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_user, create_user, and list_users. It also adds the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, making the operation 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 provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like update_record or natural_language_update, nor does it mention that it's for existing users only. The only usage hint is the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is a precondition rather than a selection guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.