greenhouse_advance_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not describe side effects (e.g., state changes, irreversible actions, error conditions). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 short but fails to convey critical information. It includes routing details that are likely generic, while omitting purpose and parameter details. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema that doesn't need explanation, the tool is a mutation that advances an application. The description provides no information about required arguments, success/failure behavior, or typical usage. It is completely inadequate for the task complexity.

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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely states it's 'a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying expected keys, structures, or examples. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states it's a Greenhouse connector operation to 'advance an application', providing a verb and resource. However, it does not explain what 'advance' means (e.g., moving to the next hiring stage), leaving ambiguity. It distinguishes from sibling 'greenhouse_reject_application' by implication.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, required permissions, or scenarios where it should or shouldn't be used. The only context is routing details.

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