Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, how partial updates are handled (null values vs. omitted fields), or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted language, though it could potentially benefit from additional context. The structure is appropriate for a basic tool description.

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 complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation), complete lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description doesn't address critical context: behavioral traits, usage guidelines, or complete parameter semantics. For a mutation tool with this level of complexity, more comprehensive documentation is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description lists some updatable fields (name, company, title, phone, email, tags, custom fields), which maps to 7 of the 9 parameters, but it doesn't explain parameter semantics like what 'phone_numbers' and 'email_addresses' arrays should contain, how 'tags' work, or what 'custom_fields' structure is expected. This partial compensation is insufficient given the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 target resource ('a candidate's name, company, title, phone, email, tags, or custom fields by ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_application or update_user, which would require a 5.

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 an existing candidate ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like create_candidate or merge_candidates. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.

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