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 states this is a write operation ('[Write]'), which implies mutation, but doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic intent.

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 very brief (one sentence plus a bracketed note) and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, and the '[Write]' annotation, while minimally helpful, is concise. However, it could be more structured by integrating usage hints, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, error handling, permissions, and what the tool returns. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a write tool where such details are critical.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (sys_id and fields). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify field examples like 'active' or format details). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which fits here.

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 ('Virtual Agent topic properties'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_va_topic' (creation) and 'get_va_topic' (retrieval) by focusing on modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'update_asset', 'update_incident'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid sys_id), exclusions (e.g., what can't be updated), or comparisons to other tools like 'create_va_topic' or 'get_va_topic'. The only contextual hint is the bracketed '[Write]', but this is redundant with the tool's name and doesn't offer practical usage advice.

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