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 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this action is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related records). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant transparency gap.

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 appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and front-loads the essential information (action + target). Every word earns its place.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and multiple sibling deletion tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like permanence, permissions, error conditions, or relationship to other tools. The presence of an output schema helps somewhat, but the description should do more given the tool's complexity and risk profile.

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 mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the single 'application_id' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add meaningful details about parameter format, constraints, or where to obtain the ID. It provides minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by the parameter name itself.

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 ('Delete') and target resource ('an application by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_candidate' or 'delete_job_opening', but the specificity of 'application' provides adequate differentiation within this 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reject_application' or 'delete_candidate', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing application ID from 'get_application' or 'list_applications'). It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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