servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a permission requirement ('WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is useful, but lacks other critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a destructive operation, what happens to existing user data not mentioned in 'fields', if changes are reversible, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 ('Update a user account') and includes a crucial prerequisite. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information, 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 covers the basic purpose and a permission requirement but misses key contextual elements: behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, reversibility), expected output format, error conditions, or usage examples. Given the complexity of updating user data and the lack of structured support, the description should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.

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 fully documents the two parameters ('sys_id' and 'fields'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of common field updates or constraints on the 'fields' object. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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') and resource ('user account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_group' or 'update_hr_profile', but the focus on user accounts is clear enough for basic identification.

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 a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which gives some context for when this tool can be used. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'create_user' or other update tools for different resources, nor does it mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where it should be preferred.

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