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 'Add new options' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens if options already exist, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately scannable and understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and only 2 parameters, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and poor schema documentation, it should provide more behavioral context and parameter guidance to be truly complete for agent use.

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 for both parameters, the description provides minimal help. It mentions 'dropdown/multi-select custom field' which hints at the 'custom_field_id' purpose, and 'options' which maps to the array parameter name, but doesn't explain what an option object should contain, format requirements, or constraints. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 new options') and target resource ('to a dropdown/multi-select custom field'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_custom_field' or 'update_custom_field_options', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 'create_custom_field' (for creating the field itself) or 'update_custom_field_options' (which appears to modify existing options). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for this operation.

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