Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('Attach') but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. The mention of base64 or URL input adds some context, but critical behavioral traits like mutation impact or rate limits are missing.

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 action and key details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. The structure is optimal for its content.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by explaining input methods and file types. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, as a mutation tool with significant parameter complexity, the description lacks completeness in behavioral and usage aspects, making it minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'content' and 'url' are alternative input methods for file attachment, and 'type' relates to file categories like 'resume, cover letter, etc.'. However, it doesn't clarify other parameters like 'candidate_id' or 'content_type', leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('Attach a file') and the target ('to a candidate'), with examples of file types ('resume, cover letter, etc.') and input methods ('via base64 content or URL'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_attachment_to_application' by specifying attachment to a candidate rather than an application, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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 'add_attachment_to_application' or 'download_attachment'. It mentions input methods but not contextual prerequisites, such as candidate existence or permissions required. Usage is implied through parameter context but not explicitly stated.

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