Modify existing ServiceNow workflows by updating their name, description, table assignment, activation status, or custom attributes to adapt to changing business processes.
Update an existing workflow in ServiceNow
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't mention what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and gets straight to the point.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, what the workflow_id parameter represents, what happens during the update, or what the tool returns. The description should provide much more context given the tool's complexity and lack of structured documentation.
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 description provides zero information about parameters, while the schema has 6 parameters (workflow_id, active, attributes, description, name, table) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't compensate for this complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving all parameters semantically undefined.
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 ('an existing workflow in ServiceNow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_workflow_activity' or 'create_workflow', but it's specific enough to understand what the tool does.
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 like 'create_workflow', 'deactivate_workflow', or 'update_workflow_activity'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for using this update operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.