Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a mutation ('unreject') but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what 'active status' entails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 waste. It front-loads the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a mutation with no annotations), the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool, more behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) would improve completeness, making it adequate but with clear 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?

The description does not mention parameters, but schema description coverage is 0% with only one parameter ('application_id'). Since there are zero parameters described in the schema, the baseline is 4, as the description need not compensate for missing param info but also adds no specific parameter context.

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 ('unreject'), the target resource ('a previously rejected application'), and the outcome ('returning it to active status'). It precisely distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'reject_application' and 'advance_application' by focusing on reversal of rejection.

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 implies usage context ('previously rejected application') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'advance_application' or 'update_application'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about appropriate scenarios.

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