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 grants permissions (a write operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the user already has the permission. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and optional scope. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 (permission mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, and usage guidelines needed for safe operation.

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 mentions optional scoping to 'office or department', which hints at two parameters, but doesn't explain the four parameters (user_id, user_role_id, office_id, department_id) or their relationships. No details on what user_role_id represents or how scoping works are provided.

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 ('Grant'), target resource ('a user a role on all future jobs'), and optional scope ('optionally scoped to an office or department'). It distinguishes from sibling 'add_job_permission' by specifying 'future jobs', but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'remove_future_job_permission' or other permission 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?

The description implies usage for granting permissions on future jobs, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'add_job_permission' (which likely applies to existing jobs) or 'change_user_permission_level'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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