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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing fields not mentioned, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 what it communicates 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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description doesn't adequately cover usage context, parameter meanings, or behavioral implications needed for safe and correct tool invocation.

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 and 4 parameters, the description only mentions 'source, referrer, or custom fields' which partially maps to 3 parameters. It doesn't mention the required 'application_id' parameter at all, nor does it explain what these fields represent, their formats, or constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names visible in the schema.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('an application') with specific fields mentioned ('source, referrer, or custom fields'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_candidate' or 'update_job' by focusing on applications, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other application-related update tools.

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. With siblings like 'update_candidate', 'advance_application', and 'move_application', the description doesn't indicate when this specific update operation is appropriate versus other modification tools.

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