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. 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive operation, but it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it sends notifications, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.

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, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context about permissions, consequences, and alternatives. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't explain what the tool returns or confirm successful deletion. It meets basic requirements but leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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?

The description adds meaningful context about the single parameter by specifying 'by ID', which clarifies that the interview_id parameter must be an identifier. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this minimal addition provides adequate semantic understanding beyond the basic schema type information.

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 scheduled interview by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_application' or 'delete_candidate', but the specificity of 'scheduled interview' provides adequate clarity for this tool's unique function.

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 'update_interview' or 'cancel_interview' (if such tools exist). It mentions 'by ID' which implies the parameter needed, but offers no context about prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate scenarios for deletion versus other actions.

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