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. It states it's a creation tool, implying mutation, but lacks critical details like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or error conditions. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function and parameters.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and the tool being a mutation operation, the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context, error handling, permissions, and output expectations (though an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at what it returns). For a creation tool in a system with many siblings, more completeness is needed.

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 both parameters ('name' and 'optional parent department'), which aligns with the two parameters in the schema. However, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond naming them—no format expectations, constraints, or examples. This provides basic mapping but insufficient detail for a tool with zero schema 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 ('Create a new department') and specifies the key attributes ('with a name and optional parent department'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_department' by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'create_office' or 'create_user'.

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, prerequisites, or constraints. It doesn't mention when to choose this over other department-related tools like 'update_department' or 'list_departments', leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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