Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., for invalid times), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from additional context for completeness.

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 (mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and usage guidelines. While an output schema exists (which might cover return values), the description doesn't address critical aspects like error conditions or dependencies, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 'start time, end time, or interviewers,' which hints at parameters like 'start', 'end', and 'interviewer_ids', but doesn't explain semantics (e.g., date formats, null handling, or that 'interview_id' is required). It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameters largely 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 resource ('a scheduled interview') with specific fields ('start time, end time, or interviewers'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_interview' or 'delete_interview', though the verb 'Update' implies modification of existing records versus creation or deletion.

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 (e.g., 'create_interview' for new interviews, 'delete_interview' for removal, or other update tools like 'update_application'). It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing an existing interview ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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