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 it mentions the validation checks performed ('conflicts and missing dependencies'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, what the output format looks like, or whether it has side effects. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 and front-loaded with the essential information in a single sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information. The structure efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope.

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 validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the validation results look like, what format they're returned in, or how to interpret them. For a tool that presumably returns validation findings, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior and output.

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 completely. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between the two parameters (mutually exclusive alternatives) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and target resources ('update set or app'), and indicates the validation scope ('check for conflicts and missing dependencies'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'preview_update_set' or 'validate_artifact', which have similar validation functions.

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 minimal usage guidance - it only mentions this is for 'pre-validate before deployment.' There's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'preview_update_set' or 'validate_artifact', nor any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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