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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse 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 (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or usage context. However, an output schema exists, which may provide return value information, partially mitigating the need for description completeness. This results in a baseline adequacy score.

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 'rejection reason' and 'application,' which loosely map to the two parameters, but adds minimal semantic detail—it doesn't explain what 'rejection_reason_id' represents, valid values, or how to obtain them. With low coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate.

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 ('rejection reason on an already-rejected application'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'reject_application' or 'update_application', which could also involve rejection reasons.

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 mentions 'already-rejected application,' which provides some context about when to use it (after rejection), but offers no guidance on when NOT to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't compare with sibling tools like 'reject_application' (which might set initial rejection) or 'update_application' (which might have broader functionality).

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