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 implies a write operation ('Add') but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether notes are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what the response contains. The visibility feature is mentioned but not elaborated.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and parameters. Front-loaded with the core action and target.

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 a write operation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does at a high level but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and parameter details that would be helpful 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. It mentions 'candidate' (mapping to candidate_id), 'text note' (mapping to body), and 'optional visibility' (mapping to visibility), covering all three parameters at a high level. However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples beyond what's implied.

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 a text note') and target ('to a candidate's activity feed'), with an additional feature ('with optional visibility'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'add_email_note_to_candidate' by specifying text notes, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all other note/activity-related 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_email_note_to_candidate' or 'get_activity_feed'. The description mentions optional visibility but doesn't explain when to choose private vs public, or any prerequisites for using the tool.

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