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 mentions 'preserving the primary's record,' hinting at non-destructive behavior for the primary, but fails to clarify critical aspects: whether the duplicate is deleted or archived, what happens to associated data (e.g., attachments, notes), permission requirements, or error conditions like invalid IDs.

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 ('merge a duplicate candidate into a primary candidate') and adds a key behavioral note ('preserving the primary's record') without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation merging records), no annotations, and an output schema present (which may cover return values), the description is moderately complete. It states the purpose and a key behavior but misses details on side effects, permissions, and error handling, which are crucial for safe use in a candidate management context.

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 implying 'primary_candidate_id' and 'duplicate_candidate_id' refer to candidates to merge. However, it doesn't explain parameter roles beyond the schema's titles (e.g., which candidate survives), format details, or validation rules, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 specific action ('merge a duplicate candidate into a primary candidate') and the resource involved ('candidate'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_candidate' or 'update_candidate' by focusing on merging duplicates rather than deletion or general updates.

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, such as 'delete_candidate' for removing duplicates or 'update_candidate' for manual merging. It lacks context about prerequisites, like ensuring candidates are actual duplicates, or exclusions, such as not merging active applications.

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