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 implies a mutation ('Mark as hired') but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, side effects (e.g., notifications), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for safe tool invocation.

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 front-loads the core action and lists optional parameters without unnecessary words. It earns its place by conveying essential information compactly.

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 the mutation nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action but misses critical behavioral context like permissions or side effects, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for safe 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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions optional parameters ('start date, opening, and close reason') but doesn't explain their meanings, formats (e.g., date string format), or how they affect the hiring process. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 ('Mark an application as hired') and the resource ('application'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'advance_application' or 'reject_application' by specifying the hiring outcome, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 'advance_application' or 'update_application', nor does it mention prerequisites such as application state or permissions. It only lists optional parameters without contextual usage advice.

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