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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens to associated data (applications, notes, etc.). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable.

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 and minimal parameter guidance, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to address critical behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or side effects that are essential for safe tool invocation.

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 'candidate_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 find candidate IDs. It provides minimal value beyond what's implied by the parameter name.

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 resource ('a candidate by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_application' or 'delete_tag', but the specificity of 'candidate' provides adequate differentiation within the context of candidate management tools.

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 'anonymize_candidate' or 'merge_candidates', nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences. 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.