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. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity with 3 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks usage context, detailed parameter guidance, and behavioral transparency. It meets a baseline but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'application_id' implicitly via 'on an application' and lists 'starts_at' and 'custom_fields' as updatable fields, providing some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., date format for starts_at, structure of custom_fields), leaving key details undocumented.

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 ('current offer on an application'), specifying what fields can be updated ('new start date or custom fields'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_application' by focusing specifically on offers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_current_offer' or 'list_offers_for_application'.

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 like 'update_application' or 'create_application'. The description mentions updating 'current offer' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., whether an offer must exist) or context for when this operation is appropriate versus creating a new offer.

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