Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting user access), rate limits, or what the output contains, leaving 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and target. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context, parameter explanations, and usage guidelines, failing to provide a complete picture for safe and effective use.

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 'permission ID' relates to 'future job permission'. However, it doesn't explain what 'user_id' or 'future_job_permission_id' represent, their formats, or how to obtain them, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Revoke') and target ('user's future job permission by permission ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_job_permission' or 'list_future_job_permissions', which would require mentioning scope or type distinctions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing permission IDs from 'list_future_job_permissions'), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'remove_job_permission', leaving usage context unclear.

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