Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool logs an email interaction, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what the activity feed 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 front-loads the core purpose and key parameters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It specifies the action and parameters but lacks behavioral context and detailed parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 lists the parameters (to, from, subject, body, and implies candidate_id via context), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., email addresses for 'to' and 'from_'), constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in 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 ('Log an email interaction') and the target ('on a candidate's activity feed'), with specific fields involved. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_note_to_candidate' by specifying email-specific fields, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'add_email_to_user' which might serve a different purpose.

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 like 'add_note_to_candidate' or 'add_email_to_user'. The description implies usage for logging email interactions but lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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