Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states the action but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Attach'), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., attachment ID returned). This is inadequate for a tool with potential side effects.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and methods, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about the tool's function.

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 (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't address key contextual gaps like authentication needs, error handling, or practical usage examples. For a mutating tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant uncertainty for an agent.

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 but adds minimal param semantics. It mentions 'base64 content or URL' which hints at 'content' and 'url' parameters, but doesn't explain the 'type' parameter, required 'application_id' and 'filename', or optional 'content_type'. The description fails to clarify parameter relationships or constraints beyond the schema.

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 target resource ('to an application'), specifying two attachment methods ('via base64 content or URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'download_attachment' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'add_attachment' which might be a more generic version.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing application), exclusions (e.g., file size limits), or comparisons to similar tools like 'add_attachment' or 'add_email_note_to_candidate', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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