Greenhouse MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a mutation tool ('Move'), implies it may skip workflow stages, and mentions a requirement ('Requires both from_stage_id and to_stage_id'). However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what the output schema returns, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage examples and distinctions. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second provides context and prerequisites, and the third clarifies alternatives. There is no redundant or verbose content.

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 mutation nature, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter roles adequately, but lacks behavioral details like permissions, effects, or error handling. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but more context would improve completeness for a stage-skipping operation.

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 explains that 'application_id' identifies the candidate application, 'from_stage_id' and 'to_stage_id' specify the source and target stages, and clarifies that both stage IDs are required for skipping stages. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail ID formats or validation rules.

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 ('Move an application to a SPECIFIC stage within the SAME job') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'advance_application' for sequential advancement. It provides concrete examples (e.g., skipping from 'Application Review' to 'Onsite'), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicitly defines when to use this tool ('skip stages,' 'jump a candidate to any stage') and when not to ('For sequential advancement to the next stage, use advance_application instead'). It clearly names the alternative tool, providing direct guidance on tool selection without ambiguity.

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