Greenhouse MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, effects on associated data, or error handling. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context like safety warnings, prerequisites, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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%, but the description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'by ID', which clarifies the parameter's role. However, it doesn't explain the ID format, source, or validation, leaving gaps. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, baseline 3 is appropriate as it provides some context.

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 custom field by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_custom_field_options' or 'delete_tag', which follow the same pattern, so it's not fully distinctive.

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., needing the custom field ID from 'list_custom_fields'), exclusions, or related tools like 'update_custom_field' or 'create_custom_field' for context.

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