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. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., removing tag from all candidates). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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 coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the action and parameter purpose but lacks crucial behavioral details (permanence, permissions) and usage context. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't address mutation risks.

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 clarifies the purpose of the single parameter 'tag_id' beyond what the schema provides (0% coverage, only shows type integer). However, it doesn't explain where to obtain valid tag IDs (e.g., from list_tags) or format constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 ('a candidate tag by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'remove_tag_from_candidate' or 'create_tag', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 'remove_tag_from_candidate' or 'bulk_tag', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing tag_id from list_tags) 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.