Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a mutation tool ('advance an application'), specifies the required parameters (from_stage_id) and optional behavior (to_stage_id omission leads to sequential advancement). However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions, which are important for a mutation operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (mutation with 3 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter behavior but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or side effects, which are notable gaps for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 explains the purpose of from_stage_id ('the candidate's current stage') and to_stage_id (if omitted, 'advances to the next sequential stage'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't clarify the semantics of application_id or provide examples of valid stage IDs.

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 specific action ('advance'), resource ('application'), and scope ('to the NEXT stage in the pipeline (within the same job)'), with concrete examples like 'from "Phone Screen" to "Onsite"'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings (move_application_same_job and move_application) by specifying its sequential advancement 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., 'to move a candidate forward one step'), when not to use it (e.g., for moving between arbitrary stages or different jobs), and names specific alternatives (move_application_same_job and move_application). This helps the agent correctly select this tool over its siblings.

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