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 implies a write operation ('Add') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 lists optional parameters without waste. Every word contributes directly to understanding 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters at a high level but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, relying on the output schema for return values.

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%, but the description adds value by listing optional fields (company, title, dates) beyond the required candidate_id. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., date strings) or constraints, leaving gaps compensated only by the schema's structure.

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') and resource ('employment history record to a candidate'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_education' by focusing on employment, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'remove_employment'.

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 (e.g., 'update_candidate' or 'remove_employment'), nor does it mention prerequisites like candidate existence. It only states the basic function without context for selection.

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