Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Change' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires admin privileges, whether changes are immediate or require approval, what happens to existing permissions, or potential side effects. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a permission-modifying 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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters, though it could benefit from additional context in a second sentence.

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 permission-changing tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema information provided in context signals, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the significance of 'global' permission level, doesn't mention authorization requirements, doesn't describe what the tool returns, and leaves both parameters poorly documented given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description only mentions 'permission level' with examples but doesn't explain the 'user_id' parameter at all. It doesn't clarify what format the permission_level should be (beyond examples), whether there are constraints, or how to obtain valid user IDs. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 ('Change') and resource ('user's global permission level') with examples of permission levels. It distinguishes this from other user-related tools like 'update_user' or 'disable_user' by focusing specifically on permission level changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools that might affect permissions.

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 like 'update_user' (which might also handle permissions) or 'create_user' (which sets initial permissions). There's no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or typical use cases for changing permission levels.

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