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 states the tool creates a new office, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if the creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response includes. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 front-loads the core action ('Create a new office') and briefly lists parameters. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, 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 complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or idempotency, and while an output schema exists (which relieves the need to explain return values), the parameter semantics are under-specified. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The description adds minimal semantic context: it mentions 'name' and 'optional parent office and location,' which aligns with the three parameters in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about parameter formats or constraints. The description doesn't compensate by explaining parameter purposes beyond their names, leaving the agent to guess at semantics like what 'parent_id' refers to or 'location' format.

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 office') and specifies the resource ('office'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_office' or 'list_offices' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_department' or 'create_job' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_offices' for verification or 'update_office' for modifications. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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