Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the 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?

Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, but with an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description provides minimal but adequate coverage. It identifies the core action but lacks important context about parameters, permissions, and behavioral consequences that would be needed for safe 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no additional information about what 'candidate_id' and 'education_id' represent or how to obtain them. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving both parameters semantically undefined.

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 ('Remove') and target resource ('an education record from a candidate'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'remove_employment' or other deletion tools, which would require specifying what distinguishes education removal from other removal operations.

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 'delete_candidate' or 'remove_employment', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing existing education records or appropriate permissions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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