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 clearly indicates this is a mutation operation ('Transfer', 'Moves'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the application's history. The description adds basic behavioral context but leaves important operational details unspecified.

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 perfectly structured with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core purpose, second provides usage context, third clarifies parameters and exclusions. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations but has an output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and when to use it. It covers the key operational aspects but could benefit from mentioning authentication requirements or potential side effects. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description adds significant value by explaining the purpose of 'new_job_id' ('to a DIFFERENT JOB') and 'new_stage_id' ('optionally into a specific stage'). It doesn't explain 'application_id' or provide format details, but the context about what gets moved where compensates well for the schema 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 specific action ('Transfer an application to a DIFFERENT JOB entirely') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_application_same_job' and 'advance_application'. It explicitly defines the verb (transfer/move) and resource (application) with precise scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when a candidate applied to the wrong role or a better fit opens up') and when not to use it ('NOT for moving between stages in the same job'), naming specific alternatives ('move_application_same_job' or 'advance_application'). This creates clear boundaries for tool selection.

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