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 mentions optional email sending and references 'list_rejection_reasons' for parameter values, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this action is reversible (though 'unreject_application' exists as a sibling), permission requirements, or rate limits. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains parameter usage, and the third provides the key alternative. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential 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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description does reasonably well. It covers purpose, guidelines, and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral transparency about reversibility, permissions, or side effects. The existence of an output schema helps, but more behavioral context would be needed for full completeness.

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, the description compensates well by explaining the purpose of three parameters: 'rejection_reason_id' (from list_rejection_reasons), 'notes' (for internal context), and 'rejection_email' (to trigger email notification). It doesn't cover 'application_id' semantics, but provides meaningful context for the other three parameters beyond what the bare schema offers.

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 ('Reject a single application') and resource ('application'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'bulk_reject' tool mentioned. It provides a verb+resource combination that is unambiguous and directly addresses what the tool does.

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 states when to use this tool ('Reject a single application') versus alternatives ('For bulk rejections, use bulk_reject instead'). It provides clear context for usage and explicitly names the alternative tool, offering complete guidance on tool selection.

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