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 mentions the optional verification send, but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the email already exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the optional behavior. 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 reduces need to describe returns) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and optional verification, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, and parameter nuances, which are important for a mutation tool in a user management context.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'user_id' identifies the user and 'email' is the address to add, and notes the optional 'send_verification' behavior. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., email validation) or constraints, leaving gaps for the 3 parameters.

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 ('Add an additional email address') and the target resource ('to a Greenhouse user'), with a specific optional behavior ('optionally sending verification'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_user' or 'update_user' by focusing on email addition, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools.

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., user must exist), exclusions, or compare with other email-related tools (e.g., 'add_email_note_to_candidate'), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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