Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'revoke' implies a destructive/mutative operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, whether the change is permanent or reversible, what happens if the permission doesn't exist, or what the output looks like. For a permission removal tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the core action ('revoke'). Every word earns its place.

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 there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a destructive permission operation with 2 required parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more context about usage scenarios, error conditions, or security implications. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'permission ID' which maps to one parameter (job_permission_id), but doesn't explain why both user_id and job_permission_id are required or their relationship. It adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from parameter names alone, earning a baseline score.

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 job permission by permission ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'remove_future_job_permission' or 'change_user_permission_level', which appear to handle related permission 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to know the permission ID first), nor does it clarify the relationship with tools like 'list_job_permissions' (which might be needed to find the ID) or 'add_job_permission' (the inverse operation).

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