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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool processes applications sequentially with rate-limit delays (important for performance expectations) and returns success/failure counts (clarifying output behavior). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like notifications or audit trails, leaving some gaps.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each earn their place: purpose statement, usage example, safety feature explanation, and behavioral details. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words, 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's mutation nature (advancing applications) with no annotations but an output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, usage, and key behaviors. It mentions the output format (success/failure counts), which aligns with having an output schema. However, for a batch mutation tool, it could better address error handling or permission requirements.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'application_ids' is described as 'multiple applications' for batch advancement, and 'from_stage_id' is explained as an optional safety check to filter candidates by current stage. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format details like integer ranges.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('advance') and resource ('multiple applications'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'advance_application' which handles single applications. It explicitly mentions moving candidates to the next stage in batch mode, making the scope and differentiation unambiguous.

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 ('to move a batch of candidates forward — e.g., all candidates who passed a phone screen') and includes a safety check option ('Optionally specify from_stage_id to only advance candidates currently in that specific stage'). It distinguishes from the single-application alternative by emphasizing batch processing.

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