Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when fields are set to null. The mention of specific updatable fields adds some context, but critical behavioral information is missing for a mutation tool.

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 and lists all updatable fields without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers what fields can be updated but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and parameter details beyond field names. With no annotations, it should do more to guide safe usage.

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 lists the updatable fields (name, status, department, offices, requisition ID, notes), which maps to 6 of the 7 parameters (excluding job_id). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's generic titles, but doesn't explain data formats, constraints, or the purpose of the required job_id parameter.

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 job') with specific fields that can be modified (name, status, department, offices, requisition ID, notes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_job' (creation vs. update) and 'update_job_opening' (different resource), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all update tools like 'update_application' or 'update_candidate'.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing job ID), when not to use it, or how it relates to similar tools like 'update_job_opening' or 'update_application' in the sibling list.

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