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 performs a deletion, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or returns confirmation data. For a destructive operation, this lack of detail 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Delete') and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 that this is a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists (which should cover return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks critical behavioral details (e.g., permissions, irreversibility) and usage context. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is limited.

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 'a specific opening from a job', which implies the need for identifiers (job_id and opening_id), aligning with the two required parameters in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add details beyond this implication—it doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, or where to find them. The baseline is 3 since the schema defines the parameters, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the resource ('a specific opening from a job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_application' or 'delete_candidate', which would require more specific context about what a 'job opening' entails in this system.

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., whether the opening must be in a certain state), consequences (e.g., if deletion affects related applications), or when to choose other deletion tools like 'delete_application' or 'delete_candidate' from the sibling list.

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