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 this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the opening becomes active immediately, what happens if duplicate opening IDs are used, or what the response contains. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 states the core purpose upfront and mentions key optional parameters. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for a tool description.

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 this is a write operation with 5 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but has significant gaps. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context about behavior, parameter usage, and alternatives would be helpful for a creation tool.

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 three optional parameters (opening ID, status, custom fields) but omits 'close_reason_id' and doesn't explain what values are valid for 'status' or the structure of 'custom_fields'. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 opening') and resource ('on a job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_job' or 'update_job_opening', but the focus on 'opening' provides some distinction within the job management context.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_job' (for creating the job itself) or 'update_job_opening' (for modifying existing openings). The description mentions optional parameters but doesn't explain when they should be used or what prerequisites exist.

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